IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 32402 of 2008(G) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ABDUL KALAM AZAD PROPRIETOR, M/S.INTERNATIONAL TRADE LINKS, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR) KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. ADDL.R4: MEERAN, S/O. MOITHEEN, PENDANATH HOUSE, MULAVOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA. (ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.14816/08 DATED 20.11.2008) R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR FOR ADDL.R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 32402 OF 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner was a defaulter under the KGST Act. His property was brought to sale under the Revenue Recovery Act. It was purchased by the additional fourth respondent. Petitioner filed an application to set aside the sale. That was disposed of by Ext.P6. Petitioner challenges Ext.P6. There are other prayers also ancillary to the main prayer. One of the contentions taken is that the petitioner was not heard. Petitioner has other contentions also. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Varkey v. State of Kerala (2008 (4) KLT 738) to contend that a person must be heard before the application for setting aside the sale is disposed of. There is not much dispute that the petitioner was not heard. In such circumstances, Ext.P6 is only to be set aside. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is quashed and there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P5 in accordance with law, after affording an WPC.32402/08 G 2 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also the additional fourth respondent. In order to facilitate an early disposal of the matter, the petitioner and the fourth respondent or their representatives shall be present before the first respondent at 11 AM on 04.02.2009 and a decision will be taken in accordance with law within two weeks from 04.02.2009. Learned counsel for the additional fourth respondent points out that he apprehends that the petitioner may cut down the trees standing on the land. As a condition for setting aside the sale, it is ordered that the petitioner will not cut down any trees until a decision is taken in the matter. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge