IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23274 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MAHIN ABOOBACKER, S/O.SULAIMAN, CHELLIPADATH HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM DESOM, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PULLOOT, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 23274 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 14th August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the auction purchaser of 6.037 cents of land in a revenue sale conducted by the respondents on 02.03.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite satisfaction of the entire sale consideration, the sale was not confirmed by the said respondent , under which circumstances, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No. 13409 of 2007, leading to Ext. P3 judgment, whereby the second respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P4 (therein) as specified. Pursuant to the said verdict , the second respondent passed an order setting aside the sale, instead of confirming the sale, stating that the sale consideration procured was much below the market value of the property in question. The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing W.P.(C) No. 29900 of 2007, wherein Ext. P6 judgment was passed W.P.(C) No. 23274 OF 2009 2 directing the first respondent to re-consider the matter, invoking the power under Section 53 of the Act and to pass final orders within the time as specified therein. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext. P7 order passed by the first respondent allegedly in compliance with the directions in Ext. P6 is actually not in conformity with the observations and directions contained therein and has gone beyond the power and competence of the first respondent with regard to the course of events, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of law. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. It is very much relevant to note that the petitioner has not availed the effective alternate remedy provided under the Statute by virtue of the stipulation provided under Section 83 of the Act, wherein the power is very much vested with the Revisional authority to entertain the application of an aggrieved person, either on its own motion or on an application preferred by any person interested; and to call for the relevant records to redress the grievance, rectifying the mistake by passing such appropriate orders in conformity with the relevant provisions of W.P.(C) No. 23274 OF 2009 3 law. 4. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is directed to pursue the said remedy as provided under Section 83 of the Act . If any such petition is filed within two weeks from today, the same shall be treated as well within time and appropriate orders shall be passed by the Revisional Authority, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that till such final orders are passed in the revision proposed to be filed by the petitioner, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P7 shall be kept in abeyance The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk