IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29684 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LALU JOHN S/O. ABRAHAM JOHN,KANIPARAMBIL, AAYIRANALLOOR P.O.,EDAMAN,PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM 691 695. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM 691 001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOLLAM 691 001. 4. THE THAHSILDAR PATHANAPURAM 691 695. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29684 OF 2008 H ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P7. Petitioner was a bidder at revenue auction. The property was knocked down in his favour. He remitted the entire bid amount. On the complaint that the sale was not confirmed, he approached this court earlier and this court by Ext.P6 judgment directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass orders. As a result of that, Ext.P7 is passed. The RDO has refused to confirm the sale. 2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. I feel that the petitioner has a statutory remedy under section 83 of the Revenue Recovery Act and the petitioner can be relegated to prefer revision. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that resale may take place in the meantime. In order to facilitate the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy, it is ordered that resale on the basis of Ext.P7 decision will be put on hold for a period of one month from today and it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy under law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks