IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35123 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- KURUNYAN KUNYARAMU, 'KURUNYAN HOUSE', P.O.OTHUKKUNGAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER, MANJERI. 2. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, TIRURANGADI. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 4. K.KUNHALANKUTTY, ASIAN INDUSTRIES, ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM. 5. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. FOR R1-3 & 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 35123/2007. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE OISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 18.11.2006. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.7687599 DATED 13.12.2006. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT NO.32088 DATED 22.11.2006. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.3.2007. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.5.2007. EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION -DO- EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION DATED 6.11.2007 WITH POSTAL RECEIPT. EXT. P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD. 9.11.2007. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 35123 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P1, P4 and P8. Ext.P8 is the order passed in the revision petition. According to the petitioner Ext.P8 order was passed on 9.11.2007 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on 7.11.2007 the case was first posted for hearing and petitioner had filed a petition dated 6.11.2007 requesting to adjourn the hearing by pointing out that he is suffering from fever and he may not be able to appear and he wants to engage an Advocate. Petitioner also relies on Exts.P2 and P3. 2. In the facts of this case, even though it is pointed out that notice has not been served on the fourth respondent, I order that it may not be necessary that the notice be served on the fourth respondent. 3. I heard learned Government Pleader also. Learned Government Pleader would point out that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the property does not belong to the fourth respondent. He submits that the property belonged to the mother of the fourth respondent and wife of the petitioner and upon the death of the mother/wife, WPC.35123/2007. 2 the property would devolve on the petitioner and also the fourth respondent and therefore the property is liable to be proceeded against under the Act. In the counter affidavit filed, it is admitted that the application was received only after the date of hearing, 7.11.2007 and it is pointed out that there is no medical certificate. 3. Having regard to the facts, I feel that the petitioner must be given an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, Ext.P8 is quashed. In order to expedite the matter, it is ordered that the petitioner will be present before the fifth respondent either in person or through representative at 11 a.m., on 6.8.2008. The fifth respondent will proceed to consider and take a decision after hearing the petitioner or his representative, who may be present on the said date. It is made clear that no notice need be issued to the petitioner again. A decision will be taken in the matter within three weeks from the date of hearing. Coercive steps will be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb