IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15261 of 2005(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P. SREEDHARAN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, THAZHE KANDOTH, CHORODE AMSOM, CHETHAMANGALAM, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SMT.S.LAKSHMY SMT.SEEMA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, VADAKARA. 2. SRI. KANNAMBATH KUNHAMMAD, S/O. SOOPPY HAJI, PATHIYARAKKARA, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. P.RAMESH BABU, PARAMBATH HOUSE, PALAYAD AMSOM, PATHIYARAKKARA DESOM, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADDL. RESPONDENT: 4. KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KELTRON HOUSE, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM-695 033, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. (ADDL. RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.6.6.2008 IN I.A. NO.6104/2008). BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 SRI.M.C.JOHN FOR ADDL.R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ASSIGNMENT DEED DT.23.1.2003 EXECUTED BY R3 IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER. P2: TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DT.19.4.05 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P3: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT.26.4.05 OF R1 TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.15261 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging sale of third respondent's property to the second respondent in recovery proceedings. I.A. 6104/2008 is filed by KELTRON stating that recovery proceedings is initiated at their request because third respondent owes substantial amount to the KELTRON under a decree obtained by it. Counsel for KELTRON submitted that KELTRON is entitled to recover the amount through revenue recovery proceedings by virtue of notification issued in it's favour under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Petitioner's case is that petitioner purchased the property from third respondent for valid consideration. In any case since purchase of property by the petitioner is after service of Revenue Recovery notice, the sale in his favour is subject to recovery proceedings. Government Pleader reported that second respondent who is the purchaser in auction, deposited the amount. Even though this court granted stay against dispossession on 23.5.2005, there is no appearance for the second respondent. Notice does not appear to be served on second respondent as he is out of India. In any case if second respondent was interested in the matter, he would have 2 approached this court and got the stay granted against him vacated. The petitioner has offered to pay the amount deposited by second respondent with interest thereon. The W.P. is accordingly disposed of quashing the sale in favour of second respondent on petitioner giving a Demand Draft in favour of the second respondent for the entire sale price paid by him together with 12% interest per annum from date of deposit of sale price by second respondent and such interest will be payable till 15.7.2008. The Demand Draft should be deposited with the first respondent for him to release it to the second respondent at his request. The sale proceeds received will be transmitted by the first respondent to KELTRON. The petitioner is directed to make payment before 15.7.2008 and if payment is not made by then, sale in favour of second respondent will stand confirmed after 15.7.2008. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms