IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 15668 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.N.JANAKI, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.THANKAPPAN, MEELOOTTU HOUSE, ELANTHOOR KIZHAKKEMURI, ELANTHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ADOOR. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. M.MUHAMMED ISMAIL, ISMAIL MANZIL, VETTIPURAM ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. PONNAPPAN ACHARI, MELLOOTTU VEEDU, ELANTHOOR, NOW RESIDING AT MELLOOTU VEEDU, MANGARAM, KONNI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.OV.MANIPRASAD FOR R6 R5I.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE GOVERNMENT PLEADER Mr.P.K.BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.05.2007 IN CRL.M.P.1946/2007. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.02.2009 IN CRL.M.A.1946/2009 EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 06.01.2009 EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27.01.2009 EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 07.04.2009 EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 14.05.2009 EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25.05.2009 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 15668 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an accused in a case involving the offecne under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and pursuant to the conviction and sentence, which had become final, the petitioner was called upon to satisfy the compensation ordered to an extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. As per Ext.P1 order passed by this Court, in Crl.R.P. No. 1946/2007, six months’ time was given to satisfy the same and on failing to effect the necessary payment, appropriate steps were taken through the intervention of the revenue authorities; which was challenged by filing WP(C) 2446/2009 leading to Ext.P4 judgment, making clear that the remedy of the petitioner was something else. 2. In the meanwhile, the auction sale had taken place on 17.01.2009, aggrieved of which the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 appeal before the second respondent/District Collector under Section 53 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It was during the pendency of the above proceedings that, the petitioner chose to approach this Court by filing WP (C) 12774/2009, particularly after receipt of the notice in WP(C) 6923/2009 WPC NO.15668/2009 2 filed by the successful bidder for confirming the sale and to effect delivery. Both the above cases were considered together and Ext.P7 judgment was passed. On the basis of the submission made from the part of the revenue authorities that, the sale had already been confirmed, WP(C) 6923/2009 was disposed of, holding that no further orders were necessary therein; simultaneously reserving the rights and liberties of the petitioner in WP(C) 12774/2009 to challenge the sale proceedings. The petitioner has approached this Court again by filing the present Writ Petition for staying the delivery and also for a direction to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 appeal pending before the second respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents and the Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State/Departmental authorities submit that, Ext.P5 appeal is not at all maintainable; the same having been submitted admittedly after expiry of 30 days stipulated under statute. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, no power is conferred on the second respondent to condone the delay in filing the appeal preferred under Section 53 of the Act. However, it is very much relevant to note that, sufficient power is vested upon the revisional authority to remedy the situation by exercising the power under Section 83 of the Act and adequate measures have been provided under Sub Section 3 of Section 83 to condone the delay, if any. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits WPC NO.15668/2009 3 that, Ext.P6 confirmation of sale is yet to be communicated to the petitioner and that the petitioner came to know about the said proceedings only on the basis of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader; pursuant to which Ext.P7 judgment was passed. 4. In the above circumstance, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the revisional authorities by filing necessary proceedings under Section 83 of the Act, along with such other proceedings as necessary and on such an event, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties concerned. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue the said remedy provided under the statute, it is made clear that the dispossession of the petitioner from the property in question pursuant to Ext.P6, on confirmation of sale, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc