IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 4668 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ LAKSHMI DEVI TILE WORKS REPD. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ANANDAN K.D., KALLOOR, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENT: ------------- THE DIST. COLLECTOR, THRISSUR AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DIST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. TEK CHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).4668/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT For land tax aggregating Rs.1,51,701/-, Revenue Recovery action taken against the petitioner's property resulted in attachment of an extent of 1.87 acres in Kallur village, Mukunthapuram Taluk. Apparently, though the property was brought to sale, there were no bidders and accordingly, Government purchased the same under Section 50 of the Revenue Recovery Act on 18.10.1995 and the sale was confirmed on 22.1.1996, according to the petitioner. There were no further proceedings thereafter. The petitioner continues in possession of the property, he claims. He submits that as per Ext.P2 Government Order, the Government will accept the claim for re-conveyance of land which was purchased by them under Section 50 of the Act, provided the entire amount of public arrears due on the date of the sale is remitted. It seems that the petitioner remitted a portion of the amount so due (according to the petitioner entire amount due was remitted) and sought for re-conveyance of the land. W.P.(C).4668/2008 2 Ext.P1 is referred to, to contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer had recommended re-conveyance of the land but apparently nothing took place thereon. The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to re- convey the land within a time frame. 2. Mr.Tek Chand, learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that due to passage of time, the files relating to the request made for re-conveyance is not traceable. There are no records to clearly show the remittance of the amount by the petitioner subsequent to the sale. Matter requires attention by the District Collector. 3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: 4. Petitioner may file a representation before the first respondent within one month from today clearly expressing his willingness to proceed under Ext.P2 W.P.(C).4668/2008 3 Government Order. If it is so filed, District Collector shall look into the same and take a decision thereon in terms of Ext.P2 Government Order. If there are further amounts to be remitted by the petitioner in terms of the order, then it shall be done by him. The entire process may be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs