IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34221 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSEPH K.C., AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHACKO, KOLATTUKUDI HOUSE, MANJAPRA P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, FINANCE TOWER, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. WILSON CHAKKAPPAN, CHAKKIYATHMODA VEEDU, MARIGIRI, MANJAPPRA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 5. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R.), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.34221 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order issued by the 5th respondent, through which a petition filed by him to set aside a sale conducted by the 2nd respondent, was rejected. Challenging the sale proceeding the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion, and through Ext.P6 judgment this court had directed the petitioner to resort to remedy available under Section 52 or 53 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Accordingly the petitioner had approached the 5th respondent seeking to set aside the sale, invoking Section 53 of the Act. While repelling contentions raised in challenge of the sale, the 5th respondent had observed that the petitioner can still invoke remedy available under Section 52 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, on deposit of the bid amount along with 5% addition and also the interest and costs. However, it is noticed that challenge against the sale is based on allegation of irregularity which will fall only within the purview of Section 53 of the Act. 2. While considering validity of Ext.P7, it is noticed that W.P.(C).34221/09-W 2 the petitioner has got an effective remedy against the said order by way of statutory revision, as provided under Section 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be relegated to such remedy available under the statute. 3. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file revision petition against Ext.P7 order, before the appropriate authority and also to seek appropriate interim relief from that authority. It is further directed that if any such revision petition accompanied with any petition seeking interim stay is filed, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, the competent revisional authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, either on the revision petition or on the interlocutory application within a period of two weeks thereafter. 4. In order to facilitate the petitioner to approach before the revisional authority, further proceedings for confirmation of the sale in question shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb