Dismissed

N.K. Sasidharan v. Districtor Collector, Ernakulam

Kerala HC19 Mar 2010WP(C)/15843/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging a court sale where the petitioner claimed a fraudulent low-price revenue sale existed. Directions were issued to relegate the petitioner's contentions to a separate judgment regarding the frustrated revenue sale, deferring all merit issues until then.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is ordered dismissed with directions that petitioner's contentions be considered in the proceedings following the judgment in W.P(C).5032/09.

N.K. Sasidharan Vs Districtor Collector, Ernakulam — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 15843 of 2009(A)

¶6

---------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-----------------------

¶9

N.K. SASIDHARAN, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, AGED 51 YEARS, NALAOTHUKUMVEETTIL, AMBATTUKAVU DESOM, THAIKKATTUKARA DESOM, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-------------------------

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2. THE REVENUE RECOVERY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY TAHSILDAR'S OFFICE, TALUK OFFICE COMPLEX,COLLEGE P.O., ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

3. MRS.ELIZEBATH THOMAS, AYAMVILAYIL, KARUVATTA P.O., ADOOR.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.P. PRADEEP.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶20

W.P(C).No.15843 OF 2009

¶21

------------------------------------------Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2010

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner states that he had purchased an item of property in a court sale. That property is involved in a revenue sale. It is the plea of the petitioner that the revenue sale has been knocked down for a very low amount and that he is prepared to pay amounts much above the amount at which the revenue sale has been knocked down. In opposition, there is the plea that the court proceedings, including the sale in favour of the writ petitioner, were fraudulent and collusive. Today, by separate judgment, W.P(C).5032/09 filed by the auction purchaser in the revenue sale has been disposed of. Directions have been issued in that judgment to consider the matter in the light of what is stated therein. I deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioner herein also to be heard in those proceedings. Hence, it is directed that the petitioner's contentions would also be considered while the matter is taken up following the

¶24

WPC.15843/09

¶25

¶26

judgment in W.P(C).5032/09. It is clarified that all issues on

¶27

merits are left open. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶28

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge.

¶29

kkb.23/03.

N.K. Sasidharan v. Districtor Collector, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.K. Sasidharan v. Districtor Collector, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs T.P.Senkumar IPS

Dr.Shaju Antony Vs Dr.T.K.Narayanan and Another

Sankarankutty Vs C.Vijayamma

State of Kerala Rep.by the Secretary Vs Sabu Joseph & Another

Sheela Joy Vs Managing Director,Kerala Water Authority

Elizabeth Thomas Vs the State of Kerala