IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6367 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PUTHIYONNAN REEJA, W/O.BALARAMAN, AGED 42 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT SARASWATHY SADANAM, PAZHASSI AMSOM MASTTANNUR DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., `BHADRATHA', MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN-680 020. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE RECOVERY) KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., `BHADRATHA', MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN-680 020. 3. THE SENIOR MANAGER (R.R.), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., `BHADRATHA', MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN-680 020. 4. SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KORAN NAMBIAR AGE NOT KNOWN, THERUR, KIZHALLOOR VILLAGE, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 543. BY SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.6367 of 2011-U ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a defaulter in payment of amounts due to respondents 1 and 3 under a chitty transaction. Pursuant to the revenue recovery steps initiated by the 2nd respondent, immovable property belonging to the petitioner was sold in public auction on 6.2.2001. According to the petitioner she had submitted an application to set aside the sale, under Section 53 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, as evidenced from Ext.P1, as early as on 6.3.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that she was making enquiries about pendency of Ext.P1 application. But she was given an impression by the 2nd respondent that she will be issued with notice of hearing for disposal of Ext.P1 application. However, it is stated that, during 2010 when she noticed that the 4th respondent is making preparation for starting some construction in the property, a lawyer notice was caused as per Ext.P2, to respondents 1 and 2. Through the W.P(C) No.6367 of 2011-U 2 lawyer notice a demand was raised for disposal of Ext.P1 application and till then to preserve the property. Ext.P3 is the reply issued to the lawyer notice by the 1st respondent. Observation contained in Ext.P3 regarding disposal of the application under Section 53 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, is as follows: “An application under Section 53 of the KRR Act has been received but the same was found baseless as it was seen only to delay the process, which was evident from the non compliance of Govt. orders especially the Hon'ble High Court order in O.P 11712/98 dt.24.6.98. 2. It is further stated in Ext.P3 that the sale was confirmed by virtue of an order passed on 21.5.2001 by the competent authority and the sale certificate has been registered on 12.9.2001, vide document No.1857/01. In Ext.P3, the petitioner was informed that since the sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was already registered in the name of the bidder, nine years ago, the request of the petitioner is not justifiable. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 application was pending since the year 2001 onwards and the confirmation as well as registration of sale certificate if W.P(C) No.6367 of 2011-U 3 any was done without disposal of Ext.P1. Hence such actions are vitiated under the statute, is the contention. 4. From Ext.P3 letter it is evident that the proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was initiated as early as in the year 1997. The auction sale of the property was posted for the first time on 17.1.1998. It is evident that the petitioner had approached the Government and obtained instalment facility to remit the arrears. But she failed in complying with the conditions stipulated and under such circumstances the auction sale was posted again on 30.6.1998. It is further evident that, meanwhile the petitioner had approached this court by filing O.P.No.11712/1998. This Court permitted the petitioner to make payment of 1/3rd of the amount due on or before the date of sale and to pay the balance amount in two equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.8.1998 and 15.9.1998. It is evident that the petitioner again failed to take benefit of the benevolence granted. The petitioner further approached the Government and obtained instalment facility again, when the sale was posted on a W.P(C) No.6367 of 2011-U 4 subsequent dates, on two occasions. The Government orders issued in this regard dtd.20.10.2000 and 12.12.2000 are referred to in Ext.P3 reply. But the petitioner still failed to comply with those orders. The sale was conducted, pursuant to non compliance of the conditions stipulated in the Government orders, on 6.2.2001. 5. From the facts narrated as above, it is evident that, the petitioner was vigilant in following up the matter till the date of sale in the year 2001. It is further evident that the petitioner was aware about the sale, since the contentions is that she had submitted Ext.P1 application immediately after the date of the sale. But it is evident that the petitioner had not taken any further steps till Ext.P2 lawyer notice was issued in the year 2010. According to the petitioner all along the 9 years she was pursuing the matter orally before the 2nd respondent. However, it is evident that the sale was confirmed in the year 2001 itself and the sale certificate was got registered in that year itself. Now the petitioner is seeking relief by way of direction to the respondents to dispose of Ext.P1 application. Eventhough W.P(C) No.6367 of 2011-U 5 there is a passing observation in Ext.P3 to the effect that an application under Section 53 was received and the same was found baseless, there is no clear cut evidence to show as to whether it is Ext.P1 application was received within the period stipulated and as to whether it was disposed of or not. However, I am not inclined to issue such a direction at this belated point of time, since I am of the view that exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 in favour of the petitioner after the long lapse of 9 years, is not at all justified. 6. However, it is evident that, if confirmation of sale was done with any material irregularity by virtue of non disposal of application under Section 53, the petitioner has got a statutory right to challenge the confirmation by invoking revisional jurisdiction as provided under Section 83(1) of the Act. Whether the petitioner has got any proper explanation for the delay caused in invoking such jurisdiction, is a matter which need be examined by the statutory authority. 7. Having not inclined to exercise the discretionary W.P(C) No.6367 of 2011-U 6 jurisdiction to issue a direction for disposal of Ext.P1, in view of the inordinate delay caused in the matter, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 8. However, rights if any available to the petitioner to challenge the confirmation of sale, as well as all other consequent steps, by invoking revisional remedy is left open. All contentions raised in this writ petition are also left open for agitation. 9. Needless to say that if the petitioner makes any application for getting copies of the order, confirming the sale or a copy of the sale certificate, the same shall be issued by the 2nd respondent on usual terms, without any further delay. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab