IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 360 of 2011 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18388/2007 DATED 21/12/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- M.D. CHACKO, MUTHUKATTIL VEEDU, THUDANGANAD, MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY FOR REVENUE, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 002. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, PALA P.O. - 686 575. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK, PALA P.O., - 686 575. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 360 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The appellant approached this Court with the prayers in the writ petition as extracted below: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider Exhibit P1 and re-convey the land to the petitioner as requested in Exhibit P1 accepting the dues as on date of re-conveyance as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time limit to be fixed by this Honourable Court. ii) such other relief as may be prayed for or deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost.” 2. After considering the merits, the learned Single Judge passed the following verdict: “The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings for sale of the petitioner's property for realization of abkari dues. The petitioner himself states in the writ petition that the petitioner is ready to pay the entire dies. The petitioner has not been able to obtain any interim W.A. No.360 of 2011 - 2 - order. As such, there is no point in considering the writ petition on merits. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed” 3. The writ appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful writ petitioner stating that there is an unfortunate misconception of the factual position with regard to the relief sought for, simultaneously pointing out that the petitioner is ready and willing to satisfy the entire liability to the concerned authority/Government so as to cause re-conveyance of the property; which issue is still pending consideration before the Government. 4. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader as well. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prayer of the writ petitioner/appellant is only to have Ext.P1 representation preferred before the Government considered in accordance with law and that the observation made by the learned Single Judge, as if the petitioner were challenging the sale proceedings, is not correct and is liable to be intercepted. 6. Considering the limited nature of the relief W.A. No.360 of 2011 - 3 - sought for, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the further details. 7. In the above circumstances, the first respondent/Government is directed to consider Ext.P1 representation preferred by the appellant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, of course, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The verdict passed by the learned Single Judge will stand modified to the above extent. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns