IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6385 of 2011(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOHNSON, S/O. C.V.JOSEPH, CHOKATTU HOUSE, PAISAKARI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. TAHASILDAR, TALIPARAMB, KANNUR-670141. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, PAYYAVOOR VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 633. 3. SMT. DOLLY KANDARAPPILLIL CHOKKATTU HOUSE, PAISAKARY.P.O., KANNUR-670 141. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 & R2, R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 6385 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 proceedings, through which the 1st respondent had rejected the claim made by the petitioner to exempt the properties covered under Exts.P1 and P2 documents from the purview of the Revenue Recovery steps initiated. 2. The 1st respondent in Ext.P6 found that the transferee is only the wife of the defaulter and the transfer was effected in a fraudulent manner in order to defeat the proceedings initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amount legally due. Hence the transaction was declared as invalid under section 44(3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and further it is decided to proceed against the property in question with steps for attachment and sale. 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, the petitioner had filed statutory revision as provided under section 83(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, before the 5th respondent. Along with WP(C) .6385/2011 2 Ext.P7 revision petition, the petitioner had also filed an interim application seeking stay of further steps till the disposal of the revision by the said authority. Petitioner points out the endorsement contained in Ext.P7, evidencing receipt of the revision petition in the office of the 5th respondent on 10.2.2007. Grievance of the petitioner is that pending consideration of the revision before the statutory authority, further steps are now being pursued and the 1st respondent had initiated steps for attachment and sale of the property in question. Under such circumstances, the petitioner seeks interference of this court to restrain further steps, till the disposal of the revision petition. 3. Having considered the fact that the 5th respondent is in seizin of the matter, I am of the view that this court need not go into merits of the contentions raised. On the other hand interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the 5th respondent to consider the matter on an expeditious basis. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 5th respondent to consider and dispose of, either Ext.P7 revision petition or the stay petition filed along with the revision petition, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the WP(C) .6385/2011 3 petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment . 4. Till such time orders are passed by the 5th respondent as directed above, all further steps pursuant to Ext.P6 in respect of the property covered under Exts.P1 and P2 documents, shall be kept in abeyance. 5. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 5th respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .6385/2011 4