IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 6923 of 2009(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M.MUHAMMED ISMAIL, ISMAIL MANZIL VETTIPRAM ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE SMT.M.S.SHAMALA SRI.V.AJITH KUMAR SMT.SHEREENA MEERAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, PATHANAMTHITTA, HAVING OFFICE AT MINI CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. C.N.JANAKI, W/O.THANKAPPAN, MELOOTTU VEEDU, ELANTHOOR KIZHAKKE MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.P.J.JOSEPH FOR R3 SRI.GEORGE MATHEW FOR R3 SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN, GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 & R2 SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN FOR R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 12774 OF 2009. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.6923/2009 & 12774/2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No.6923/2009 has been filed by the petitioner stating that, despite his turning to be the successful bidder and remitting the entire sale consideration on time, the sale has not yet been confirmed and the property subjected to auction sale by the Revenue authorities has not been conveyed to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that no proceedings have been filed by the 3rd respondent, who was the original owner of the property invoking the provisions u/s. 52 or 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act. In the said circumstance, the petitioner has sought for a direction to confirm the sale and to effect the delivery of the property concerned. 2. The 3rd respondent in W.P.(C) No.6923/09 has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12774/09 challenging the sale conducted by the Revenue authorities, mainly attributing irregularities in the sale. It is the case of the petitioner therein that the amount sought to be realised from her was in respect of the W.P.(C) Nos.6923/2009 & 12774/2009 2 compensation ordered to be paid by the Trial Court pursuant to the conviction and sentence ordered in C.C.557/01 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate`s Court No.II, Pathanamthitta. It is contented that the conviction though became final, the sentence was modified by this court as per Ext.P1 verdict, whereby the simple imprisonment for six months was substituted by imprisonment for one day till the rising of the Court, of course, sustaining the compensation of Rs.two lakhs ordered to be paid. The time to effect payment of compensation was subsequently enlarged by this Court as per Order dated 20.02.2009 in Crl.M.A.No.1577/2009 filed in the Crl.R.P.No.1946/2007, as evident from Ext.P2. It is the case of the petitioner therein that the confirmation of the sale has been sought to be intercepted by filing Ext.P4 appeal before the 2nd respondent/District Collector, where it is still pending. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6923/2009 submitted that the 3rd respondent ie., the petitioner in the other case, had already appeared before this court by filing W.P.(C) No.2446/09 seeking for similar reliefs, wherein interference was declined as per judgment dated 27.1.09, observing that the dismissal would be without prejudice to the right of the said W.P.(C) Nos.6923/2009 & 12774/2009 3 petitioner to move the criminal court and to pursue any other appropriate remedy available in law. It is also stated that there is no mention about filing the said writ petition anywhere in the present proceedings and hence that there is clear suppression of material facts. However, it appears that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12774/09 approached this Court after dismissal of the said case by filing a petition for enlargement of time, which led to Ext.P2 order passed on 20.02.2009. 4. The learned Govt. pleader appearing for the State as well as department authorities submitted that the sale has been confirmed as per Order No. C 21605/09 dated 14.5.09 issued by the Revenue Additional Officer, Adoor. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is evident that the main relief sought for by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6923/2009 as to the confirmation of sale stands redressed and the remaining question is with regard to the delivery, which aspect is also taken care of, as per the Order passed by the R.D.O. while confirming the sale, giving necessary instructions to the authorities concerned. As such, nothing further remains to be considered in W.P.(C) No.6923/2009 which hence is hereby closed. W.P.(C) Nos.6923/2009 & 12774/2009 4 6. With regard to the merit involved in W.P.(C) NO.12774/09, in view of the subsequent developments, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for permission of this Court to withdraw the said proceeding, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order of confirmation of sale passed by the concerned authority and other for incidental reliefs. The permission sought for is granted and accordingly, W.P.(C) No.12774/2009 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. an.