IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37611 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JACOB @ JOSHI, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O, DEVASSY, KULANGARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, C.C.14/1419. CHULLICKAL KOCHI-5. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 021. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR) FORTKOCHI, KOCHI -682 001. 3. NYCIL MON FERNANDEZ, KURISINKAL HOUSE, THOMAS M MICHAL'S BUILDING, NO.7 G MUNDAMVELI P.O, KOCHI- 682 007. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 37611 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Ext.P5 order issued by the 2nd respondent under the provisions of section 44(1) and (2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner claims to be a bonafide purchaser of property having an extent of 5.256 cents, comprised in survey No.1099/1/4 of Thoppumpady village, which he had purchased by virtue of sale deed No.2236/2009 of SRO, Mattancherry on 25.7.2009. According to the petitioner, before purchase of the property he had obtained Ext.P1 encumbrance certificate and perused all title documents of the previous owner, the 3rd respondent herein. Only after being convinced about marketable title of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner had purchased the property. However, the property in question was proceeded against for realisation of arrears of motor vehicle tax due from the 3rd respondent and on issuing notice as contemplated under section 44 the petitioner had submitted objections before the 2nd respodnent as per Ext.P4. However, after hearing the petitioner WP(C) .37611/2010 2 the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P5 proceedings observing that the petitioner had failed in establishing any valid reason against the proceedings under section 44 (2) and (3) and therefore the land in question is liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, inspite of the transfer effected. 2. It is noticed that, against Ext.P5 proceedings, the petitioner has got an effective remedy as contained under section 83(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner is entitled to file revision against proceedings before the Commissioner of Land Revenue. Under such circumstances I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be relegated to the remedy of revision available under the relevant provisions. However, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that he will file a revision petition before the appropriate authority. But he seeks indulgence of this court to restrain further steps on the basis of Ext.P5, for a reasonable period, in order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the revisional authority. 3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file revision petition as provided under section 83(1) of the Act, before the WP(C) .37611/2010 3 appropriate authority, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. If any such revision is filed within the time stipulated as above, the appropriate authority shall consider the same as a revision petition filed within the time stipulated and shall dispose of the same on merits. Needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to seek interim order from the revisional authority pending disposal of the appeal. 5. In order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the revisional authority , further steps pursuant to Ext.P5 order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three months from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .37611/2010 4