IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9307 of 2011(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.K. PURAVATH, S/O. KORUTHU, THEKKILAKKATT HOUSE, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM ERNAKULAM DIST-686691. BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.M.G.ANON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY FOR REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST-686691. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, NELLIMATTOM, KOTHAMANGALAM-686691. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 9307 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March , 2011 J U D G M E N T petitioner claims to be the owner in exclusive possession and enjoyment of 61.94 Ares of land comprized in Sy.No.668/1A64.K62 of Kuttamangalam Village, in Kothamangalam Taluk. It is stated that the said property was sought to be proceeded against under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realising arrears of Sales Tax due from the son of the petitioner, who is the transferor of the property. By virtue of Ext.P1 proceedings the 3rd respondent found that the transfer of property is hit by provisions contained in Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and hence the property is liable to be proceeded against. A Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against Ext.P1 was disposed of by the 2nd respondent through Ext.P2. The findings entered by the 3rd respondent was upheld through Ext.P2 order. The petitioner had now filed a further revision petition before .W.P.(C)No. 9307 OF 2011 : 2 : the first respondent State Government, as evidenced from Ext.P3. Ext P4 is a stay petition filed along with the revision petition . Grivences of the petitioner is that during pendency of the said revision petition filed under the Section83(2) of the KRRAct, the respondents are proceeding with further steps for sale of the property. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this court to restrain further steps till the disposal of the revision petition. 2.Since Ext.P3 statutory revision petition is pending before the first respondent, any further steps taken in the meanwhile will prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that a direction to the 3rd respondent for an early disposal of the matter will serve the ends of the justice. 3.Accordingly,the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 revision, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other parties interested in the .W.P.(C)No. 9307 OF 2011 : 3 : matter , as early as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment. 4.Till such time Ext.P3 is disposed of as directed above, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 order which is confirmed through Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance. (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE,) jkk