IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30802 of 2008(P) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SMT. MEERA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. BHUVANACHANDRAN, MUTHANDASSERI HOUSE, MURINGOOR THEKKUMURI, KORATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY (REVENUE) GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, OFFICE AT IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008 ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NOS.30803/08 & 30804/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NOS. 30802, 30803 & 30804 OF 2008 P -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th October, 2008 JUDGMENT Since common issues are involved in these Writ Petitions, they are disposed of by a common Judgment. Petitioners are auction purchasers in a revenue sale. Petitioners challenge the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue purportedly under Section 83 of the Revenue Recovery Act. The Land Revenue Commissioner has set aside the sales in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that there is no jurisdiction under Section 83 to entertain the petition purportedly filed by the District Collector who has himself confirmed the sales in favour of the petitioners. It is further contended that Section 83 provides for a time limit for entertaining the Revision and there was no application for condonation of delay and yet, it was entertained without any such application. Thirdely, it is WPC. 30802,30803 & 30804/08 2 contended that the petitioners were not served with copies of the Revision Petitions and the order has yet been passed against them. It is their case that the reason given in the impugned order for setting aside the sales is totally unsustainable. It is their further case that the fact that a better price may be fetched if a fresh sale is held, can be no ground to hold that the original sale is vitiated. Learned counsel also points out that there are contemporaneous documents evidencing that the sale in favour of the petitioners is not vitiated. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. Of course, learned Government Pleader points out that this can be treated as the entertainment of the application suo motu by the Land Revenue Commissioner. He also presses into service the Report of the Vigilance and contends that there are various irregularities which vitiated the sales. 2. I would think that it will suffice if the petitioners are relegated to prefer Revision Petitions under Section 83(2) to the Government against the orders, wherein the petitioners will be left free to take all the contentions. Accordingly, the Writ WPC. 30802,30803 & 30804/08 3 Petitions are disposed of as follows: Petitioners may file their Revision Petitions under Section 83(2) of the Act before the Government of Kerala within the period of limitation and the first respondent in all these cases will take up the Revision Petitions and consider and take a decision on the same in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, within a period of two months from the date of filing the Revision Petitions. It is further ordered that there will be no resale of the properties till a decision is taken by the Government under Section 83(2) of the Act. No doubt, if the petitioners do not file Revision Petitions as aforesaid, they will not be entitled to the benefit of the order that there will be no resale. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge