IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5838 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KHADEEJA, W/O. MUHAMMED SHAFI, AGED 52 YEARS, VELLEZHAM HOUSE, VANDANAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TAHSLDAR (RR) AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, PUNNAPRA VILLAGE. ALAPPUZHA. 3. V.DHYANASUDHAN, S/O. LATE VIJAYAN, PUTHANPARAMBU, VANDANAM, ALAPPUZHA. 4. KUNHIKUTTIAMMA, D/O. KUNHI, PUTHANPARAMBU, VANDANAM, ALAPPUZHA. *5. KERALA STATE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *6. PROJECT OFFICER, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, ALAPPUZHA. (*IMPLEADED AS ADDITONAL 5TH & 6TH RESPONDENTS AS PER ORDER DATED 05/03/2009 IN I.A.NO.3135/2009) MR.K.P.HARISH,SC,KERALA KHADI BOARD FOR R5-R6 MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5838 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that Ext.P1 is a sale agreement entered into between her deceased husband with respondents 3 & 4 for the purchase of the property mentioned therein. The property covered by the agreement was under liability to the additional 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, although, respondents 3 & 4 were obliged to have cleared the liability, and made the property encumbrance free, they have not done that. Instead, even according to the petitioner, respondents 3 & 4 have challenged the proceedings initiated by the additional 5th respondent in WP(C) No.37665/2008, which is pending before this Court. In the meantime, the petitioner was issued Ext.P5, a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, calling upon her to vacate from the building situated in the mortgaged property. At this stage, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Although, several contentions have been urged in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction to enable her to continue residence in the premises until the sale WP(C) No.5838/2009 -2- now scheduled is held and is confirmed. The petitioner also offers that once sale is confirmed, she shall unconditionally vacate from the land. 3. Since amount is due to the Kerala State Khadi and Village Industries Board, they were impleaded as additional 5th respondent. The learned counsel for the additional 5th respondent, who has instructions in the matter, submits that more than Rs.50 lakhs is due to them from respondents 3 & 4, and that they have rightly initiated recovery proceedings. It is also stated that they have been informed by the Revenue Recovery Authorities that unless the place is got vacated and possession of the premises is taken over by evicting the petitioner or the petitioner herself vacating the premises, it will be practically difficult for them to sell the property. It is also stated that though the sale was scheduled on previous occasions, it was on account of the occupation of the premises by the petitioner, the sale did not materialise. 4. Though, the prayer made in the writ petition is for a direction to enable her to continue her residence in the premises until the sale now scheduled is held and is confirmed, and, the WP(C) No.5838/2009 -3- petitioner has expressed her willingness to surrender the possession of the property, still, I feel, from the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the additional 5th respondent, that by the presence of the petitioner the sale will not take place has to be taken note of. Therefore, if the relief now sought for by the petitioner is granted that will virtually stop the recovery proceedings, which this Court shall not do. This is for the reason that the 5th respondent has also a case that this litigation has been instigated by respondents 3 & 4. Irrespective of that, having regard to the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner, as otherwise, this Court will be staking sale of the mortgaged properties. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg