IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6868 of 2011(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER:- ----------------- M.S.PAREETH, S/O.M.M.SEETHI, MADATHIL HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, PALA. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, ERATTUPETTA. 3. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDINGS, VIKAS BHAVAN PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.6868 of 2011-G. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be a bonafide purchaser of immovable property having an extent of 29.9 cents comprised in Survey No.119/3 of Block 67 of Erattupetta Village. Ext.P1 is the sale deed through which the purchase was made. The said property was proceeded against by respondents 1 and 2 under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realising amounts of sales tax arrears due from the vendor of the property. It is revealed that the first respondent had invoked Section 44(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and declared that the transaction through which the petitioner acquired title over the property is unsustainable, and it is made only to defeat the steps initiated for realising amounts due from the vendor. Ext.P3 is the proceedings issued by the first respondent in this regard. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 the WP(C).No.6868 of 2011-G. 2 petitioner had preferred statutory revision before the third respondent as contemplated under Sec.83(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Ext.P4 is the copy of the revision petition filed. Along with the revision petition petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3, till the disposal of the revision petition. It is submitted that the third respondent has not so far considered either Ext.P4 or ExtP5. In the meanwhile, respondents 1 and 2 are proceeding with further steps for auction sale of the property, without considering pendency of the statutory revision. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court to restrain further steps of recovery till the disposal of the revision petition. 2. Considering pendency of the statutory revision before the third respondent, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing that authority to take expeditious steps for disposal of the matter. WP(C).No.6868 of 2011-G. 3 3. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the third respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 revision petition or on Ext.P5 stay application, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 4. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the third respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-