IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 14427 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------ K.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.VESUAMMA, KAYARAT HOUSE, CHUNANGAD AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS ---------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, OTTAPALAM. 3. ASSAINAR,THOZHALIL HOUSE, KEEZHAYOOR, PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No.14427 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 29th November , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is a partner of a firm and an assessee before the concerned Sales Tax authorities, owned an extent of 45 cents of land in the concerned village, which was sought to be proceeded against at the instance of the said authorities for realisation of a sum of ` 6,67,472/- due from the firm by name 'Geetha Matches'. Though the sale was notified to be held on 28.11.2007, it did not take place on that date and was adjourned to 13.12.2007, on which date, the property was bid by the third respondent for a paltry sum of ` 80,000/-. Stating that the sale was conducted clandestinely without proper notice and further that the property was having very high market value and that the sale of a portion of the property itself would satisfy the entire liability, the petitioner preferred Ext. P1 application to set aside the sale before the first respondent. But the first respondent considered the matter and dismissed the same as per Ext. P2 dated 20.02.2008, which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this W.P.(C) No.14427 OF 2008 2 Court on 09.05.2008, the following interim order was passed: “Admit. Issue urgent notice to respondents returnable in two weeks. There will be an interim stay of the confirmation of the revenue sale in favour of the 3rd respondent pursuant to Ext. P2 order in the event of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.2 lakhs within 3 weeks from today with the 2nd respondent. It is made clear that if the sale has already been confirmed, the delivery of the property to the 3rd respondent shall stand stayed subject , of course, to the fulfilment of the condition specified above. ” 3. Despite service of notice, nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the third respondent, who is stated as the successful bidder. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, this Court finds that the petitioner is very much having an alternate remedy under Section 83 (1) of the Revenue Recovery Act by filing a Revision before the Commissioner for Land Revenue and if for any reason it goes against the petitioner, he is having a further revisional remedy before the Government as W.P.(C) No.14427 OF 2008 3 provided under Section 83(2) of the very same enactment. 5. In the said circumstance, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case and the petitioner is relegated to avail the said statutory remedy in accordance with law. Taking note of the fact that the Writ Petition was admitted by this Court and is pending from 09.05.2008, the petitioner is permitted to file the statutory revision petition as above within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If any such petition is filed, the same shall be treated as a valid petition filed within time and the concerned authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned; including the petitioner and the third respondent, within a further period of 'three months' thereafter. Status quo, as on today, shall continue till the proceedings are finalised as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk