IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12528 of 2010(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.C.ABRAHAM S/O.CHACKO AGED 65 YEARS, KULANGARA HOUSE MYLAPARA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY HIS BROTHER IN LAW AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SUNNY MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 56 YEARS, GRACE HILL, KIDANGOOR. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) ALUVA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER VADAKKUMBHAGAM, ALUVA TALUK. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM 5. T.O.VARGHESE THALIYAN HOUSE, KANJOOR VADAKKUMBHAGAM, VIA., ALUVA. *ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED: 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., REVENUE DEPARTMENT. *IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DTD. 08/04/2010. R1 TO R4 & ADDL.R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.12528 of 2010-M ---------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P6 order passed by the second respondent, whereby the property purchased by the petitioner, who is stated as a bonafide purchaser, is permitted to proceed against for the dues payable by the defaulter ie. the fifth respondent, stating that the conveyance is hit by Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act. 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, though the petitioner had preferred revision petition before the first respondent under Section 83(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, interference was declined as borne by Ext.P8, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. It is seen, that the petitioner is very much having further alternative remedy, by way of revision petition before the Government, under Section 83(2) of the very same enactment. 5. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to entertain the merits. If the petitioner prefers any such W.P(C) No.12528 of 2010-M 2 revision petition under Section 83(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act before the Government, the same shall be considered passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. So as to facilitate such exercise, the Government represented by the Principal Secretary to the Department of Revenue is 'suo motu' impleaded as the additional sixth respondent and the learned Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the additional sixth respondent as well. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab