IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH APRIL, 2009 / 4TH VAISAKHA, 1931 WP(C).No. 12650 of 2009(A) PETITIONER: ------------------ RAVINDRANATHAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.GOPI, ERANEZHATHU VENGALI HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA, VADAKKUMMURI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.R.REENA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, NATTIKA VILLAGE, NATTIKA, THRISSUR. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, VALAPPAD. 6. M/S.TRICOTT MILLS LIMITED, NATTIKA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRICOT MILLS LIMITED, NATTIKA. 7. M.A.YUSAFALI, PROPRIETOR, M.K.GROUP, NATTIKA. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 12650 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the highest bidder in auction in a revenue sale of 10 cents of property in Sy.No.210/9D of Nattika Village. His grievance is that though all further proceedings with respect to the sale have been completed, the sale, so far, was not confirmed in the name of the petitioner even though six years are over. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring this writ petition with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. 3. The above sale had taken place pursuant to the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Chavakkad towards the realisation of the gratuity amount due to the workers of the sixth respondent company. Thus, the sale was held on 18.9.2002. The petitioner had bid auction for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and thereafter, as per Ext.P1, he had deposited the amount on 16.10.2002. WP(C) NO.12650 of 2009 :-2-: Subsequently, as per Ext.P2, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur confirmed the sale in favour of the petitioner. It is averred that the petitioner has approached this Court on several occasions to get the sale confirmed. The sixth respondent has also approached this Court against Ext.P2 confirmation. But this Court relegated him to approach the second respondent by preferring a statutory revision petition under Section 83(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act. By Ext.P4 proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, all further proceedings in pursuance of the order of the R.D.O., Thrissur had been stayed till the disposal of the revision petition preferred by the 6th respondent. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is in possession of 10 cents of land covered by Ext.P2. Now, the apprehension of the petitioner is that the seventh respondent is going to make construction in the property. Thus, the petitioner has approached several authorities and finally, he had preferred Ext.P5 representation before the second respondent and the same is pending consideration. The revision petition filed by the sixth respondent is also pending consideration. As evidenced by the document produced in this writ petition, the property in WP(C) NO.12650 of 2009 :-3-: question has already been sold to the petitioner and he had deposited the bid amount and subsequently, the sale is also confirmed in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P2. 5. If that be so, I am of the view that instead of entering into any finding on merit of the contention of the petitioner, especially when the statutory revision is pending before the second respondent, it is only just and proper to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 and dispose of the same on merit and to maintain status quo till then. 6. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take up and dispose of Ext.P5 after hearing the petitioner as well as all concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. There will be a further direction to maintain status quo till the disposal of Ext.P5 representation. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ WP(C) NO.12650 of 2009 :-4-: V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T WP(C) NO.12650 of 2009 :-5-: DATED: -3-2009 WP(C) NO.12650 of 2009 :-6-: