IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5032 of 2009(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ELIZABATH THOMAS, W/O.A.K. THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS, AYANIVILAYIL HOUSE, KARUVATTA, ADOOR.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., REVENUE (S) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 3. TAHSILDAR (RR), OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 011. * 4. M/S. INDIA MACHINE TOOLS, PULIKKATTU BUILDINGS, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. *(DELETED) * R4 DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 03/07/2009 IN I.A.7925/2009. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 5032/2009-Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 08/02/2008 FOR THE PAYMENT OF Rs.12,00,000/- IN TWO DEMAND DRAFTS. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.E6-619/99-00 DATED 08/02/2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPTED ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07/03/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23/07/2008 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12/11/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.5032 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner states that she is the auction purchaser in a proceeding under the Revenue Recovery Act. According to her, the official respondents are delaying the completion of the auction proceedings, including consideration of the sale for confirmation and issuance of sale certificate etc., though the entire purchase price was deposited. Therefore, she seeks a direction to the authorities to consider the matter and conclude on the issue at the earliest. Alternatively, she seeks relief that the amounts deposited by her with due interest thereon and costs may be ordered to be refunded. 2.It appears that some delay in relation to the petitioner's case is attributed by the officials to a detailed enquiry being conducted by the higher authorities in the Revenue Department in terms of the directions and the proceedings WPC.5032/09 2 that are being held in W.P(C).17480/08. Incidentally, issues in that regard need not necessarily have any specific impact on the proceedings where purchase price has already been deposited and the officials are satisfied of the bonafides of the sale. 3.Therefore, without expressing anything on merits, it is directed that the competent official respondents will take up the case of the petitioner and consider whether the same is to be confirmed. This shall be strictly in accordance with law and having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances. Such a decision shall be issued within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If it is decided that the sale is not to be confirmed, the amount paid by the petitioner with due interest thereon in terms of law shall be paid to her within a further period of two months. The time limit fixed herein shall be treated as peremptory having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. It is WPC.5032/09 3 also recorded that W.P(C).15843/09 in relation to the same sale has been dealt with by this Court in a separate judgment today. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.23/03.