IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25348 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.V. CHELLAPPAN, S/O VELAN, AGED 55 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, KUNNAMKOTTUKALLATHI, CHITTADY, VANDAZHY AMSOM, DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 4. R.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O BALAN, PALAKKAD HOUSE, MUDAPPALLUR AMSOM & DESOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 25348 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 22, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he had purchased a property from the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, long thereafter, on the ground that the 4th respondent was a defaulter, an order under sec.44(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act was passed by the 1st respondent invalidating the sale in his favour. This order, according to the petitioner, was passed without notice to him. 2. Aggrieved by the order, petitioner filed an appeal to the District Collector resulting in Ext.P3 dismissing the appeal. Thereupon petitioner filed Exts.P4 revision under sec.83 of the Revenue Recovery Act, along with Ext.P5 stay petition. It is submitted that while Exts.P4 and P5 are pending without orders, further proceedings are continued against the property in question and by Ext.P6, sale is scheduled to be held on the 29th of this month. 3. From the facts as noticed above, it is obvious that WP(C) 25348/08 2 the petitioner has pursued the matter in the manner as provided under the Revenue Recovery Act. If that be so, I do not think it proper that the respondents should proceed with the sale of the property in question. If such sale takes place, the endeavour of the petitioner to save the property will be rendered futile. In order to avoid the same, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- i. The 2nd respondent, before whom Ext.P4 revision and Ext.P5 stay petition are stated to be pending, shall take up, consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 revision. This shall be done by the 2nd respondent as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ii. In the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-