IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33885 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- C. BHASKARAN NAYAR, HILL VIEW, MARIYATHRUTHU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. ASST. COMMISSINER (ASST.) COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOTTAYAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 33885 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6, which is a notice issued under Section 49(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The complaint is that there is an assessment and the petitioner preferred appeal. Ext.P5 is the appellate order, which is dated 30.8.2008. Thereunder the appellate authority granted relief and directed to revise the assessments for the years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1997-98. Earlier petitioner came to be faced with Ext.P3 recovery notice for the very same years for a sum of Rs.14,25,640/-. Ext.P6 was issued on 10.10.2008 proposing sale of the property on 20.11.2008. Complaint is that pursuant to Ext.P5 the matter has not been redone and therefore the proposed sale for recovery of the very same amount as indicated in Ext.P3 for the very same years, which has not received the attention of the aforesaid authority pursuant to the remand, is illegal. 2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. He does not seriously contest the fact that pursuant to Ext.P5 order no revised assessment has been done. In the absence of a revised order, Ext.P6 purporting to sell the property of the petitioner for recovery of the very WPC. 33885/2008. 2 same amount as indicated in Ext.P3, under the earlier assessment order, which has been modified by Ext.P5, is unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is quashed. It is also directed that the first respondent will take appropriate steps pursuant to Ext.P5 without any delay and modified orders will be passed within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb