IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4895 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.K.NABISSA, W/O.CHANGAMOOLAYIL KADHER, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN SMT.S.SUMITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE THAHASILDAR (RR) KANAYANUR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, COCHIN. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. K.B.SUBAIR, KULANGARA HOUSE, KAMBIVELIKKATH COLONY, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL. R6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (*ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2010). R1,R3, R5 AND ADDL. R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. R2 BY ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB, SC, SUPPLYCO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 4895 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 17th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondents in setting aside the sale deed standing in favour of the petitioner and proceeding against the sale in the course of the steps being pursued against the 4th respondent, who is stated as the defaulter, after arriving at a finding that the conveyance is hit by the relevant provisions of Section 44 (2) of the Revenue Recovery Act. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property concerned which originally belonged to the 4th respondent, who is none other than the son-in-law of the petitioner was purchased for valuable sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/- and the sale deed was registered on 30.12.1999. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was much thereafter, that the proceedings were pursued under the Revenue Recovery Act, based on the requisition sent by the second respondent and hence that the situation will never come within the purview of Section 44 of the Act. It is also brought to the notice of this W.P.(C) No. 4895 OF 2010 2 Court that the matter was taken up by filing a Revision Petition under Section 83(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, particularly in furtherance to Ext.P4 judgment passed by this Court on an earlier occasion in a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who passed Ext.P5 order declining interference. It is stated that the petitioner has filed a further Revision under Section 83(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act by approaching the Government, as borne by Ext.P6. The grievance of the petitioner is that it is without any regard to the pendency of the said Revision and also the Interlocutory Application for stay, that the respondents are proceeding with coercive steps and hence are under challenge. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1,3 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. Considering the limited extent of prayer sought for and proposed to be given, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the 4th respondent for the time W.P.(C) No. 4895 OF 2010 3 being. However, the Government represented by the Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department will stand suo motu impleaded as Addl. 6th respondent. Heard the learned Government Pleader, who entered appearance on behalf of the Addl. 6th respondent as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Addl.6th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7 Second Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 83(2) of the Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned. It is also made clear that till such final orders are passed by the Addl. 6th respondent/Government, as above, all further proceedings pursuant to the sale proposed to be conducted tomorrow shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk