IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22256 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MATHEW SAM, S/O.SAMUEL, AGED 38 YEARS, VETTIKAMUKALIL HOUSE, PULAMON KARA, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. MR. T.V.GEORGE MR. JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKARA-691 506. 3. KOTTARAKKARA TALUK EDUCATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO.892, KOTTARAKKARA-691 506. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 22256 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 5th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext. P7 order passed by the Thahasildar, whereby the amount already deposited by the petitioner, towards part payment of sale consideration in respect of the auction sale conducted by the Revenue authority stands forfeited, for non satisfaction of the balance amount on time. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the Writ Petition shows that, the petitioner participated in the auction notified by the second respondent as per Ext. P1 and turned to be a successful bidder, whereupon he remitted 15 % of the bid amount on 8.3.2010 i.e on the date of auction itself, as stipulated. But, the balance amount could be raised by the petitioner only on 22.4.2010, as his mother was hospitalized in connection with some serious ailments. The case of the petitioner is that, the second respondent refused to accept the said amount, as there was a delay of '3 days' and as instructed, the petitioner approached the first respondent by moving a petition. In spite of filing Exts. P4 and P6 representations in this regard, seeking to permit the petitioner to clear the balance amount, they were not acted upon, when the petitioner W.P. (C) No. 22256 of 2010 2 approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 18495 of 2010. While the matter was pending before this Court, the second respondent passed Ext. P7 order, turning down the request of the petitioner, when the petitioner chose to withdraw W.P. (C) 18495 of 2010 with liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition. 3. The second respondent has filed a statement seeking to sustain Ext. P7, stating that, as per relevant provisions, particularly as per Section 49(3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the balance of the bid amount has to be deposited within '30 days' from the date of sale and there is no provision to extend the said period. Admittedly, the petitioner has not satisfied the said amount within the time, as the auction was held on 8.3.2010 and the petitioner turned up thereafter only on 22.4.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was never told as to the requirement to satisfy the balance liability within 30 days, which is strongly rebutted from the part of the respondents, producing a copy of the relevant communication in this regard as borne by Ext. R2 (a) dated 22.3.2010. The petitioner submitted an application before the first respondent, when the matter was sought to be enquired into and a report was directed to be filed as to the actual facts. Based on the report filed, the first respondent gave Ext. R2 (b) instructions, enabling the second respondent to proceed with further steps under Section 49 (3) Act. It was pursuant to Ext. R2 (b), W.P. (C) No. 22256 of 2010 3 the proceedings were finalized as borne by Ext. P7, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the petitioner is very much at liberty to avail the statutory remedy, by filing revision petition under Section 83 (1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, approaching the Commissioner for Land Revenue, Trivandrum. 5. However, taking note of the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner intends to avail the statutory remedy forthwith, the further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P7, in respect of the cause of action mentioned in this Writ Petition, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. If any such revision petition is filed within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the concerned authority as a proper and valid revision petition and shall be acted upon on merits in accordance with law, without delay. The Writ Petition is dismissed, however subject to the above observations. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd