IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 RSA.No.872 of 2008 (D) ---------------------------- AS.144/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, N. PARAVUR OS.499/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT,ALUVA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------- VARGHESE, AGED 59, S/O.IYPE, KOLENCHERRY HOUSE, NADUVATTOM KARA, MANJAPRA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE OFFICE, AYYAMPUZHA P.O. 4. VARGHESE, S/O.PAILY, MELAPPALLY HOUSE, PULIYANAM P.O., PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ R. S. A. No.872 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard counsel on both sides. 2. Inasmuch as the appellant/plaintiff does not raise any contention relating to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the demand under the R.R. Act or assail confirmation of revenue sale and does not also seek to set aside the order of sale under the R.R. Act held in execution of the demand, the bar under Section 72 of the R.R. Act does not bar the suit, but all the same, as it is admitted that the appellant has not been divested of possession by the Government taking over possession of the land which is attached under the R.R. Act and the purchaser is also not put in possession and there is no registration of certificate of sale also effected as envisaged in Section 57(2) of the R.R. Act, the appellant is entitled to protect R. S. A. No.872 of 2008 -2- his possession from illegal dispossession. All the same, he can be dispossessed and the fourth respondent/auction purchaser can be put in possession of the scheduled property as per the procedure prescribed under the R.R. Act and till such time, the appellant is entitled to protect his possession. 3. In the result, in reversal of the decree passed by the courts below, I grant a decree in favour of the appellant/plaintiff restraining him from being illegally dispossessed of the scheduled property by the respondents otherwise than by due process of law and following the procedure prescribed under the R.R. Act and the rules framed thereunder. The appellant shall not be entitled to any other relief. 4. This appeal is disposed of as above. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-