IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4682 of 2011(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- M/S. OIKO CREDIT ECUMENICAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY U.A. NETHERLAND, REPRESENTED BY ITS INDIAN REGIONAL MANAGER, NAJVS SUNDARA RAO, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.N.RAJA RAO, BLOCK NO.197, PRASARAN NAGAR, JUBILEE HILLS, ROAD NO.72, HYDERABAD. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM – 686 001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM – 686 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KANJIRAPPALLY – 686 507. 4. MR.GEORGE THOMAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIDA, RUBBER WOOD AND TRAINING CENTRE, KOOVAPALLY, KOTTAYAM-686 518. 5. SRI. JOJO GEORGE, S/O.VARGHESE, VALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, CHIRAKKADAVU.P.O., CHERUVALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY – 686 507. 6. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 TO R3, R6 & R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 4682 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the decree holder in an Arbitration award which is sought to be executed through EP.No.28/2007 filed before the Additional District Court, Kottayam. In the execution proceedings an item of property having an extent of 41.60 Ares belonging to the 4th respondent was proclaimed for auction sale. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent initiated proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of rubber cess due from the 4th respondent and a portion of the above said property having an extent of 3.3 Ares sold through Revenue recovery sale, to the 5th respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, revenue recovery sale was conducted in a fashion which will defeat all further proceedings in the execution petition, because the front portion of the entire property stands now sold. However it is stated that the 3rd respondent had already approached the execution court seeking claim for release of the portion which is sold in the revenue WP(C).4682/2011 2 recovery sale. Meanwhile with respect to the revenue recovery sale, the petitioner had approached the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking to set aside the sale. It is stated that the petitioner had offered payment of the amount due under the Revenue Recovery proceedings and on that premise request was made to set aside the sale. However rejecting such request the Revenue Divisional Officer had confirmed the sale through Ext.P8 proceedings. Petitioner had challenged Ext.P8 order in a revision petition filed before the 6th respondent, as provided under section 83(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Ext.P9 is the revision petition filed. It is submitted that the matter is now pending consideration and disposal before the 6th respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that, in the meanwhile, hasty steps are now being taken to issue sale certificate and to handover possession of the property to the 5th respondent. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this court. 3. It is noticed that the matter is now pending consideration and disposal in a statutory revision before the 6th respondent. With respect to restraining further proceedings, pending disposal of the revision petition, it is for the petitioner to approach the 6th WP(C).4682/2011 3 respondent through appropriate interim application. Needless to say that if any such interim application is made, the 6th respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon . 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file interim application before the 6th respondent seeking appropriate relief, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any such application is received, the 6th respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other parties concerned. At any rate a decision shall be taken thereof within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the application. In order to facilitate the petitioner to move before the 6th respondent, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three months from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).4682/2011 4