IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14572 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL KALAM AZAD, PROPRIETOR, M.S INTERNATIONAL TRADE LINKS, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVIAIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. THA TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 6. MEERAN, S/O. MOITHEEN, PENDANATH HOUSE, MULAVOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER Mr.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 14572 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May 2009 JUDGMENT This is the third round of litigation by the petitioner before this Court. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.32402/2008 which was disposed of on 27.01.2009, whereby the second respondent was directed to consider the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act, pursuant to which Ext.P2 order was passed by second respondent. This in turn was subject to challenge by filing WP(C) No.8687/2009 stating that the vital contentions raised by the petitioner were not properly adverted to by the District Collector while passing Ext.P2 order. After considering the facts and figures, this Court vide Ext.P3 judgment directed the petitioner to file a Revision petition. The petitioner preferred Ext.P4 Revision Petition, accompanied Ext.P5 petition for stay before the first respondent. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the above proceedings are still kept in cold storage by the first respondent, causing much loss and hardship to the petitioner, particularly in view of the coercive steps being pursued against the petitioner. WPC NO.14572/2009 2 3. Heard the Government Pleader as well. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the first respondent is hereby directed to consider Ext.P4 revision petition in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to hear the petitioner and also the 6th respondent, who is the auction purchaser, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the condition imposed vide Ext.P3 judgment will continue to govern. Till appropriate orders are passed, the delivery of the property will be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) dnc