IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3826 of 2009(E) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- REETHA WILSON, W/O. WILSON, NEDUCKAL HOUSE, MANORAMA JUNCTION, CHERTHALA, NOW RESIDING AT JASMINE VILLA, PALLIPARAMBU ROAD, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., COCHIN - 682 307. BY MR.ARUN VALENCHERY, ADVOCATE. MR.SAJIKUMAR.K.K., ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IDUKKI. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAPPALLY VILLAGE. BY MS. N. SUDHA DEVI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.3826 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T 5.5 acres of land was put for revenue auction on 08/10/1992. The petitioner bid the property for Rs.7,000/- and was the highest bidder. It is stated that the sale was confirmed, and 1/4th of the value, namely, Rs.1,750/- was remitted by her. It would appear that subsequently, on 04/11/1992, the balance 3/4th amount was also remitted. 2. The petitioner states that the property was not transferred and she claims to have made Ext.P1 representation dated 15/06/1993. According to her, there was no action, and therefore, she made Ext.P2 dated 06/10/1996 requesting for transfer of title and delivery of possession of the property. It would appear that while so, the sale was set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 07/08/1997. Ext.P7 proceedings show that before setting aside the sale, notices were issued by the RDO and that these were not served on the petitioner, and were returned. 3. However, on the setting aside of the sale as above, re- WP(C) No.3826/2009 -2- auction was scheduled on 05/02/2000. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P.No.3837/2000. That original petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 20/02/2006. As per the directions in the judgment, by Ext.P4, the District Collector considered the matter and left it open to the petitioner to file revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner. 4. It is stated that accordingly Ext.P6 revision was filed against the order of the RDO setting aside the sale. The revision was considered and by Ext.P7, the 2nd respondent rejected the revision. It is challenging this proceedings, the writ petition is filed. 5. Evidently, 5.5 acres of agricultural land has been sold to the petitioner in 1992, for a total value of Rs.7,000/-. Finding in Ext.P7 order is that at present, the value of the land is Rs.9,200/- per are. It is on that basis that the revisional authority held that the value realised is very low. A reading of Ext.P7 also would reveal that the revisional authority has found that the defaulter is a farmer, who has taken a relatively small sum of money as loan, and the value of the property is not proportionate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the attempt is to return the land to the WP(C) No.3826/2009 -3- defaulter. If that be the purpose and attempt, then also, do not find anything wrong for the reason that poor farmer will otherwise be loosing the land for not paying a small sum of money availed by him. Therefore, I see nothing erroneous in the conclusion in Ext.P7 order passed by the 2nd respondent. 6. True, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to me Ext.P5 order dated 30/06/1994 confirming the sale of the property, which is stated to be situated in the neighbourhood of the property bid by the petitioner. It may be true that such a confirmation was made by the RDO itself, but then, unlike in this case, sale was not set aside in the case mentioned in Ext.P5. 7. Having regard to the fact that the property bid by the petitioner is found to be valuable one, and that the value realised is disproportionate, I do not think that the writ petitioner has made put a case for interference by this Court in a proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg