IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 RP.No. 743 of 2011(H) -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1474/2010 Dated 20/06/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 6TH ADDL.RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------- KURIACHAN GEORGE, VEZHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLYAMKUDY, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.S.RAJEEV, AGED 54, S/O.SUKUMARAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ORIGINALLY RESIDING AT KUZHITHOLU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT AND NOW RESIDING AT KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERUMELY P.O., ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 509. 2. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 506. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KATTAPPANA BRANCH, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PIN - 685 515. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KATTAPPANA BRANCH, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PIN - 685 515. svs ...................2/-..... ...2... R.P. NO.7432011 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. PIN - 685 565 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, UDUMPANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PIN - 685 554. R1 BY ADV. SRI. G. SREEKUMAR R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAITHU MUHAMMED, SC, KFC R4 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAM KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 743 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 J U D G M E N T This Review Petition is filed by the Additional 6th respondent in the writ petition, seeking modification of the observations contained in the judgment, to the extent that he had failed to remit the balance sale price. It is stated that, in fact, the balance sale price was not deposited only because of pendency of the writ petition and only in view of the payments made by the defaulter during pendency of the writ petition. It is further stated that during pendency of the writ petition the 4th respondent had given instructions, not to remit the balance amount. According to the Review petitioner, the observation contained in the judgment to the effect that bidder had failed to remit the balance sale price, will stand in the way of his claiming compensation on the amounts returned, as contemplated under Section 52 (2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1988. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for all the parties. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view R.P. No.743/2011 -2- that the Review Petition can be allowed to the extent of modifying the judgment deleting the observation contained in paragraph 5 thereof to the extent that the auction bidder had failed to remit the balance sale price. 3. Hence the Review Petition is allowed and the observation contained in paragraph 5 to the extent that, “the auction bidder had failed to remit the balance sale price”, is hereby deleted. 4. The question whether review petitioner is entitled for any amount as contemplated under section 52 (2) is left open for decision of the revenue recovery authority concerned. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge