IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 31418 of 2008(M) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SINDHU, W/O.VIJAYAN KAROL VEEDU, PUNNAKULAM, KULASEKHARAPURAM KARUNAGAPPALLY , KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KARUNAGAPPALLY 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOLLAM. 3. K.M.MOHAMMED KUNJU, MITHUN DALE PAD-SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON FOR R3 SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON FOR R3 SMT.MEERA V.MENON FOR R3 R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2009 ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.36638/08J, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.31418 OF 2008 M PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.8.2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.9829/08. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF SALE CONFIRMATION. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SALE. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.9.08. EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.10.08. EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.10.2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NOS. 31418/08M & 36638/08J -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd February, 2009 JUDGMENT Since the issue involved is regarding the legality of the sale held in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.31418/08 of the property belonging to the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.36638/08, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common Judgment. 2. Complaint of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.31418/08 is that though the sale has been confirmed by order dated 19.8.2008, no further steps are being taken. It is pointed out that a Certificate of Sale also has been issued. It is the case of the petitioner, on the other hand, in W.P.(C).No.36638/08 that the assessment itself for the period had been set aside by this Court by its Judgment in W.P.(C).No.24601/07 dated 12.08.2008. But, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the auction purchaser and also the learned Government Pleader that there were assessments for other periods which are not affected by the WPC.31418 & 36638/08 2 said Judgment and, therefore, the Judgment cannot have any effect. Of course, Shri K. Sanil Kumar also pointed out that the petitioner did not take any steps against the sale and allowed the property to be brought to sale and she is a person who has invested sums in the property and for no fault of her, further proceedings are being held up. It is pointed out by the petitioner that he had filed an application for settling the dues under the Amnesty Scheme for the other year and, therefore at any rate, the sale should not have been confirmed. I feel these are all matters where if the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.36638/08 has a complaint, it is for him to approach the Authority under Section 83 of the Revenue Recovery Act. In order to facilitate the petitioner approaching the Authority, it is ordered that further proceedings pursuant to the auction sale will be held up for a period of one month from today. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= kbk. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE // True Copy // PS to Judge