IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 10453 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ M.SENTHIL KALIDAS, S/O.LATE P.MARUTHACHALAM, 2/281, VALANTHAYAMARAM, DIVANASAPUDUR POST, POLLACHI. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. 5. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.10453 of 2011-F. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the successful bidder of immovable properties in an auction sale conducted by the 4th respondent, under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, on 18.7.2009. Immovable properties having extents of 0.2833 hectors and 0.3237 hectors, comprised in different survey numbers situated at Muthalamada II Village in Chittur Taluk, was bid in auction by the petitioner and he had remitted the amounts within the time stipulated. 2. By virtue of Ext.P1, the 3rd respondent had set aside the sale without confirming the bid, assigning the reason of inadequacy regarding the price offered. Petitioner had challenged Ext.P1 order before this Court in a writ petition filed on an earlier occasion. In Ext.P2 judgment this Court found that Ext.P1 was issued without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. WP(C).No.10453 of 2011-F. 2 Accordingly, Ext.P1 order was set aside, reserving liberty to consider the matter afresh and to finalise the same in accordance with the provisions of law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Ext.P3 is the consequential order issued by the 3rd respondent, wherein the auction conducted on 18.7.2009 was cancelled and a direction was issued to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner. Subsequently, the property in question was put to further auction as evidenced from Ext.P4 notice. At that stage the petitioner had again approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.37589/2010. In Ext.P5 judgment this Court relegated the petitioner to seek revisional remedy as provided under Section 83(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The revisional authority was directed to consider and dispose of revision petition if any filed within a period of two weeks. The respondents were directed to keep in abeyance further steps for re-auction of the property in question, for a period of two months, in order to facilitate the petitioner to file WP(C).No.10453 of 2011-F. 3 statutory revision and to seek appropriate interim relief. 4. Ext.P6 is the copy of the revision petition filed by the petitioner in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P5. Along with the revision petition, Ext.P7 seeking stay was also filed. According to the petitioner, Exts.P6 & P7 applications are pending consideration and disposal before the 5th respondent, the revisional authority. But, without considering pendency of the said applications and without considering the directions contained in Ext.P5 judgment, the 4th respondent had again proclaimed the property for public auction by virtue of Exts.P8 and P8(a) notices. Under such circumstances, petitioner seeking direction to restrain further sale of the property till the disposal of the revision by the 5th respondent. 5. Heard; learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. Considering the fact that statutory revision petition is pending before the 5th respondent, it is only proper to restrain further actions for conducting sale of the property in question, till the disposal of the matter by that WP(C).No.10453 of 2011-F. 4 authority. 6. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the 5th respondent to consider and pass orders either on Ext.P6 revision or on Ext.P7 application for stay, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. Till such time orders are passed by the 5th respondent as directed above, further proceedings for sale of the property in question shall be kept in abeyance. 8. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before 5th respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-