IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 20193 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- I.R.MANOHARI, W/O.SUDHAKARAN, PANNIPULLATH HOUSE, THRITRHALLUR PO., BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR 2. THE REVENUE DIOVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR 3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), CHAVAKKAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF FORM 16 DT 24.12.05 P2 COPY OF NOTICE DT 23.12.06. P3 COPY OF RECEIPTS DT 11.12.06 AND 29.12.06. P4 COPY OF ORDER DT 3.12.07. P5 COPY OF REVISION DT 16.1.08 P6 COPY OF FORM 16 NOTICE DT 9.1.08 P7 COPY OF JUDGMETN DT 22.1.08 P8 COPY OF LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE R4. P9 COPY OF STATEMENT DT 1.11.07 P10 COPY OF DOCUMENT DT 1.8.07 P11 COPY OF ORDER DT 10.6.08 // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 20193 OF 2008 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P4, P6 and P11. Apparently, an auction sale was held. Petitioner purchased the property in auction sale. The sale came to be set aside under the Revenue Recovery Act. According to the petitioner, the petitioner preferred revision and it is also rejected without considering the contentions of the petitioner. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that there is remedy by way of further revision before the State. I feel that the petitioner can be relegated to prefer a revision. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of as follows. If the petitioner prefers a revision against Ext.P11 within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the revision will be considered on merits and without reference to any delay and after affording an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner. It is further ordered that the interim order passed by this court will continue till a decision is taken in the revision petition. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE