IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15015 of 2006(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- KOCHUTHRESSIA, W/O.GEORGE, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, VADAMA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. VIJAYAN, S/O.KUMARAN, CHERULLIL CHAURIYEDATH, PULLUT, KODUNGALLUR. 2. C.V.VINOJ, S/O.KUMARAN, CHERULLIL CHAURIYEDATH, PULLUT, KODUNGALLUR. 3. THE SECRETARY, TODDY WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, THRISSUR. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR. R3 BY ADV. MR.RENIL ANTO, SC, KTWWF BOARD R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 15015 of 2006-K ------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This case filed on 8.6.2006 was not chosen to be admitted by this Court though confirmation of the sale proceedings in respect of the property involved was intercepted as per interim order dated 9.6.2006. 2. The sequence of events shows that the petitioner had pruchased an extent of 31.5 cents of property in Survey No.491/4 of Pullut Village as per Ext.P1 sale deed from the second respondent and his brother along with other items. While enjoying the property as above, the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 notice dated 27.10.2005 issued by the fourth respondent stating that the first respondent in the writ petition was a defaulter, who owed huge amount to be paid by way of contribution to the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund in respect of the year 1996-97 and hence the said property, wherein the defaulter had also the ownership right, was not liable to be transferred or conveyed contrary to the stipulations under Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. W.P(C) No. 15015 of 2006-K 2 In the said circumstances, the fourth respondent has informed the petitioner vide Ext.P2 that the conveyance of property was bad in law and that the property was notified to be sold by way of public auction; simultaneously, intimating that necessary steps would be taken in this regard, if no satisfactory explanation was offered by the petitioner. It is stated that, the petitioner rushed to the fourth respondent and tried to convince him as to the actual facts and figures, which however did not turn to be fruitful. The fourth respondent proceeded with further steps to sell the property on 12.6.2006 as per the sale notice dated 4.5.2006, produced and marked as Ext.P3, which in turn has been subjected to challenge in this present writ petition. 3. Though the writ petition was not admitted by this Court, it was observed on 9.6.2006 that no formal order had been passed after issuing Ext.P2. It was also made clear by this Court, that if any such order was passed, the petitioner would be entitled to pursue the statutory remedies and the learned Government Pleader was required to obtain necessary instructions, simultaneously, intercepting with the confirmation of sale till such time. 4. Pursuant to the above order dated 9.6.2006 a report W.P(C) No. 15015 of 2006-K 3 dated 23.6.2006 has been filed by the fourth respondent, stating that the property was actually attached on 12.2.1999, whereas an extent of 31.5 cents, out of the total extent of 1 acre 19.5 cents, belonging to the defaulter was transferred to the petitioner vide Ext.P1 dated 15.2.1997; however it was hit by Section 44(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act; the demand being in respect of the year 1996-97. It is also stated that the sale proceedings were posted on 5.7.2006. 5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the sale has not been confirmed in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 9.6.2006. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, including the alternate remedy available to the petitioner by way of revision under Section 83(1) and the second revision under Section 83(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act, this Court does not find it necessary to keep the writ petition pending any further. In the said circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the fourth respondent to finalise Ext.P2 proceedings after issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner, granting an opportunity of hearing in this regard. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the order to be passed by the concerned W.P(C) No. 15015 of 2006-K 4 authority, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the statutory remedy in accordance with law, as already observed by this Court in the interim order dated 9.6.2006. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab