IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 26377 of 2002(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ B.K. ABOOBACKER, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED KURIKKAL, SEETHANGOLI, BELA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.MOHAMMED KUNHI SRI.A.GEORGE THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.M. BADUVANKUNHI, S/O. MAMMUNHI, MANYA HOUSE, BELA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SMT.PRIYA MAHESH SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN SMT. SMITHA BABY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 26377/2002 : 2 : ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 44800/2002 IN O.P. NO. 26377/2002 DISMISSED 26.03.2008 SD/- T. R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SOLVENCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD DATED 13.08.99. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANHANGAD DATED 03.02.2002. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 31.07.2002 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ON 23.08.2002. /True Copy/ P.A to Judge. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.No. 26377 OF 2002-M = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008. = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner mainly is that the revision petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of without hearing him. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, disposing of the revision petition filed by the petitioner. It is recorded in the order, Ext.P3, that the hearing of the revision petition was posted to 24.7.02 and notice served, but the party had not turned up for hearing. Petitioner has averred in the original petition that notice for the hearing on 24.7.02, was issued only to the counsel for the petitioner and since counsel was not in station at the time of serving notice he could not immediately inform the petitioner. Information was received by him only on the date of hearing. 2. In para 5 of the counter affidavit, it is clearly stated that hearing of revision petition was posted to 24.7.02 and notice served through duly appointed counsel for the petitioner. The notice was accepted on 15.7.02 by the counsel for the petitioner. But the party has not turned up for hearing and failed to substantiate his contentions. Therefore it is not a case where individual notice was issued to the petitioner. O.P.No. 26377 OF 2002-M 2 3. Thus, it is clear that while disposing of the revision petition the petitioner was not heard. This is a case where the sale of the property of the petitioner in revenue recovery proceedings was under challenge. A reading of Ext.P3 shows that after narrating the facts leading the revision petition, it was dismissed by a one line order. It is stated in Ext.P3 that the revision petition does not merit consideration and hence dismissed. When the party has raised various grounds, it is only proper that the revision petition should have been considered on merits and a reasoned order ought to have been passed. In view of the said position also, Ext.P3 is liable to be quashed. 4. 1st respondent is directed to hear the revision petition with notice to the petitioner and his counsel. Final order shall be passed within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Interim order passed by this Court in C.M.A.No.44800/02 will continue to be in force till orders are passed and communicated to the petitioner. OP is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE bkn/-