IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8687 of 2009(E) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ABDUL KALAM AZAD, PROPRIETOR, M/S.INTERNATIONAL TRADE LINKS, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 5. MEERAN, S/O.MOITHEEN, PENDANATH HOSUE, MULAVOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 8687 OF 2009 E -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P9 and P10. A declaration is sought about the sale being illegal and void. A direction is sought to set aside the sale. 2. The property belonging to the petitioner was brought to sale under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of arrears due under the KGST Act. Ext.P6 is an order by which the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the sale was rejected without hearing the petitioner. The sale was impugned earlier in W.P.(C). No.32402/08G. It culminated in Ext.P7 Judgment. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner was not heard before the decision was taken on his application to set aside the sale, Ext.P6 came to be quashed. Ext.P9 is the order passed pursuant to Ext.P7 Judgment. Ext.P10 is dated 22.10.2008 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, confirming the sale, apparently on the basis of Ext.P6 dated WPC. 8687/09 E 2 21.10.2008. 3. I heard Shri Raju Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for petitioner points out that none of the contentions raised in the Writ Petition have been considered by the District Collector while passing Ext.P9. He further points out that Ext.P10 was never brought to the notice of the petitioner earlier, even though the Writ Petition was disposed of only on 27.1.2009. He would submit that alternate remedy need not stand in the way of this Court. He apprehends that on the basis of Exts.P9 and P10, the delivery will be effected to the auction purchaser. 4. I would think that in the light of the availability of an alternate remedy which I do not see any reason to think, will not be effective alternate remedy, I need not entertain this Writ Petition. But, at the same time, I feel that the order should not be implemented and the delivery should not be handed over to the auction purchaser for a period of time. Accordingly, the WPC. 8687/09 E 3 Writ Petition is disposed of directing that delivery will not be effected to the auction purchaser for a period of six weeks from today and it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies in the appropriate Forum. I take note of the condition imposed in Ext.P7 Judgment that the petitioner will not cut down the trees and I order that the condition that the petitioner will not cut down the trees contained in Ext.P7 Judgment will continue as a condition for the grant of the order passed by me. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge