IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34269 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER ---------------- SRUTHI,D/O.VISWANATHAN, KODAIKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.AYYANTHOLE, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,THRISSUR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR(R.R),THRISSUR. 4. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.34269 of 2010-G ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an auction purchaser of certain immovable properties sold by the 3rd respondent, pursuant to proceedings initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The sale in question was conducted on 9.4.2007 and the property was bid in auction by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.15,20,000/-. The petitioner had remitted 15% of the bid amount on the date of sale itself and the balance amount was paid on 7.5.2007. Grievance of the petitioner is that much after remittance of the entire amount, the 1st respondent had cancelled the sale by virtue of Ext.P1 order, on 16.8.2010. 2. It is evident that cancellation of the sale was ordered on the basis of a report submitted by the Tahsildar, pointing out certain irregularities and also pointing out that the auction bidder is the nearest kith and kin of the defaulter. Further reason stated is that the amount at W.P(C) No.34269 of 2010-G 2 which the auction was conducted is not justifiable when compared with value of the property. However, aggrieved by Ext.P1 order the petitioner had filed Ext.P2 revision petition, as contemplated under Section 83(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, before the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner the revision petition is pending consideration and disposal before the 4th respondent. It is alleged that without considering pendency of the revision, the 3rd respondent had now initiated further steps for sale and the property in question is proclaimed for re-auction as evidenced from Ext.P3 notice. Hence the petitioner is seeking direction to the 4th respondent to have an early disposal of the revision petition and till then to keep further steps for re-sale in abeyance. 3. Heard, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. On the basis of instructions it is submitted that the sale proclaimed as per Ext.P3 was not taken place, and the 3rd respondent had adjourned the sale to 18.12.2010. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner had W.P(C) No.34269 of 2010-G 3 remitted the entire sale amount as early as in the year 2007 and also considering the fact that the sale was set aside only in the year 2010, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to restrain further actions of the 3rd respondent till the statutory revision is considered and disposed of by the 4th respondent. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 revision petition, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, as any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Till such time orders are passed by the 4th respondent as directed, all further proceedings with respect to sale of the property in question shall be kept in abeyance. 7. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 4th respondent for proper compliance. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge