IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24456 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ LOKANATHAN, S/O.ANKAMUTHU CHETTIAR, ATTAYAMPATHY, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DAIVANA, W/O.RAJ CHETTIAR, DAIVANA FIBRE MILL, PARAKKAL CHALLA, NEAR MEENKARA PAPER MILL, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 24456 OF 2008 J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner submits that he purchased a property by Ext.P1. Though, by this document absolute title of the property was conveyed in his favour, revenue recovery proceedings in respect of the property was pending at the time of execution of the document and according to the petitioner this fact was not known to him. The 1st respondent continued the revenue recovery action and in view of Ext. P1 title deed executed in his favour, Ext. P2 order was passed, invoking the power of the 1st respondent under Section 44 (2) of the Revenue Recovery Act invalidating Ext. P1 document and according to the petitioner the proceedings pursuant to Ext. P2 is now pending revision before the 2nd respondent and by Ext. P5 judgment of this Court, the 2nd respondent has already been directed to expeditiously dispose of the revision. W.P.(C) No. 24456 OF 2008 -2- 3. At this stage, the present request made by the petitioner is that he is willing to furnish bank guarantee from a nationalised bank covering the entire liability of the 3rd respondent transferor and that subject to furnishing of such bank guarantee, which can be appropriated towards the liability of the transferor, the property under attachment covered by Exts. P1 and P2 be released to him. Petitioner undertakes that if the revision is decided against him he will not raise any objection against appropriating the bank guarantee amount towards the liability of the transferor. 4. Now that the petitioner is willing to furnish bank guarantee to discharge the whole liability of the transferor and he is unconditionally undertaking not to raise any objection to its appropriation without any claims whatsoever, I do not think that if the property is released to him as prayed for any prejudice will be caused to the 1st respondent. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 1) That the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee from a nationalised bank, covering the full liability of his transferor, in respect of which revenue recovery action has been initiated against W.P.(C) No. 24456 OF 2008 -3- the property covered by Ext. P1 and which resulted in Ext. P2 order under Section 44(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act. 2) He shall file an undertaking before the 1st respondent, reiterating the undertaking given to this Court that he will not raise any objection whatsoever against the 1st respondent bank appropriating the Bank guarantee amount towards the liability of the transferor, in case Ext. P5 revision has been decided against him. 3) On furnishing bank guarantee and undertaking as above, the 1st respondent shall release the property covered by Ext. P1 to the petitioner. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-