IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3531 of 2008(U) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. ABDUL NAZAR, S/O ABDUL JABBAR, ATTAYAMPATHY, MUTHALAMADA AMSOM & DESOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED SHUKKOOR, S/O ABDUL JABBAR, ATTAYAMPATHY, MUTHALAMADA AMSOM & DESOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR(RR), CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER-II, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHALAMADA AMSOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 3531 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners submit that they are the bonafide purchasers of a property, covered by Exts.P3 and P4 which are the respective title deeds of petitioners 1 & 2. It is stated that in relation to the assessment years 1998-99 to 2001-02, proceedings were initiated against their transferor and the matter is now pending in revision before this court in STR Nos.472/2005, 378/05, 379/05 and 380/05. It is stated that in those revision petitions, this Court has passed Ext.P1 series of orders granting stay on condition that 50% of the amount due is remitted and those interim orders have been complied with by the petitioners as can be seen from Ext.P2 series of receipts. It is stated that despite this, by Ext.P5, the 5th respondent declared Exts.P3 & P4, null and void exercising his powers under Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act. In view of this, the petitioners complain that they are not in a position to enjoy the property or make any improvements therein. It is in this background, this Writ Petition has been filed. WPC No.3531 of 2008 2 2. So long as Ext.P5 order holds the field, the respondents cannot be faulted for their refusal to issue permit sought for by the petitioners. 3. In view of this, I direct that if the petitioners remit the balance amount, that is due under the orders which are the subject matter of the sale tax revisions referred to above, the permits sought for by the petitioners will be issued. I clarify that the payments made by the petitioners will be subject to the final out come of the sale tax revisions referred to above. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE btt WPC No.3531 of 2008 3