IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 34301 of 2005(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SMT.BINU, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.VINOD KUMAR PANDARATHIL HOUSE, P.O.THALASSERY, THALAPPILLY TALUK, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAGHUNATHAN @ PRABHAKARAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN NEENDOOR HOUSE, P.O.THALASSERY, DESAMANGALAM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, KERALA & LAKSHADEEP, 5TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. SOUTHE INDIAN BANK LTD., THRISSUR., THRISUR, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK FOR R3 SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR, CGC FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.34301/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY R2. P2 : COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P3 : COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.151/04 DATED 30/09/2004 ISSUED BY R1. P4 : COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DATED 18/10/2005 SENT TO R3 BY PETITIONER. P5 : COPY OF REPLY DATED 05/11/2005 ISSUED BY R3 BANK. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34301 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Property mortgaged by a borrower for availing loan from 3rd respondent was sold in recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of tax due for the year 1991-92. Petitioner purchased the property in revenue sale on 01/07/1999 and sale is confirmed. According to the petitioner, the Bank filed application before the DRT in 2004 and petitioner was made a party. Later, on Bank's application, petitioner's name was deleted. Even though the writ petition is pending for the last three years, 3rd respondent has not filed any counter in this Court. There is nothing to indicate that 3rd respondent has any claim of priority over tax arrears due to the State and if so, they would have challenged the revenue sale of the property in favour of petitioner. So long as the revenue sale stands unchallenged by 3rd respondent, 3rd respondent has no authority, whatsoever, to interfere with the enjoyment of the property by petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of declaring the above position but leaving freedom to 3rd respondent to challenge the sale, if there is a case that such sale is illegal or untenable for any reason, whatsoever. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg