IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37589 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.SENTHIL KALIDAS, S/O.LATE P.MARUTHACHALAM, 2/281,VALANTHAYAMARAM, DIVANASAPUDUR POST, POLLACHI. BY ADVS. 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, PIN – 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), CHITTUR, PALAKKAD - 678 502. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO.37589 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 order of the 3rd respondent through which auction sale conducted under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act was set aside. Petitioner is the highest bidder who had participated in the auction and remitted the entire bid amount. On an earlier occasion when the sale was set aside without issuing any notice to him, the petitioner had approached this court and in Ext.P2 judgment this court had set aside the order and directed the authority to consider the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. Through Ext.P3 the 3rd respondent had confirmed the earlier order and set aside the sale, mainly because of the ground that the value of the sale is much less when compared to the market value. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises contention that the ground as stated above is not a valid reason to set aside the sale, as stated in Subaida Sulaiman vs. Hamza (1991(2) KLT 158). WP(C) .37589/2010 2 3. However, I notice that the petitioner has got an effective remedy by way of revision against Ext.P3, under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The Commissioner of Land Revenue is the competent authority to whom the petitioner can approach through revision petition. Therefore I am of the view that the petitioner can be relegated to file revision petition before the appropriate authority. 4. However, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court in restraining further actions now proposed for effecting re- auction of the property, for a reasonable period, in order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the revisional authority. From the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant such a relief. 5. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the revisional authority invoking section 83(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. If any revision petition is filed before the appropriate authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the said authority shall dispose of the same on merits. Needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to seek appropriate interim order from the revisional authority, with WP(C) .37589/2010 3 respect to further proceedings. 6. However, the respondents are directed to keep in abeyance further steps of re-auction of the land in question, which is now initiated on the basis of Ext.P4 notice, for a period of two months, in order to facilitate the petitioner to file statutory revision and to seek appropriate relief from the revisional authority. pmn/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE WP(C) .37589/2010 4