Allowed

Pavithran v. the District Collector, Alappuzha

Kerala HC20 Dec 2011WP(C)/24674/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order setting aside a revenue auction sale, the High Court of Kerala, after attempted settlement through Lok Adalath, directed the respondents to return the purchase price and compensate the petitioner. The court allowed the petitioner to move for contempt if the award was not complied with.

What did the court decide?

The 5th respondent to pay Rs 1.7 lakhs as compensation, and the government officials to return the purchase price within two weeks.

Pavithran Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 24674 of 2011(H)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

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

¶8

PAVITHRAN, PUTHENVELI, MANAPPAURAM P.O., CHERTHALA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA 688001.

¶12

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA 688001.

¶13

3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA 688524.

¶14

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THYCATTUSSERY VILLAGE OFFICE, THYCATTUSSERY P.O., CHERTHALA 688525.

¶15

5. ASOKAN, ASWATHI BHAVAN, POOCHAKKAL P.O., CHERTHALA 688526.

¶16

6. ADDL.R6- THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

7. ADDL.R7- THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER,

¶18

THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, ALAPPUZHA DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA P.O. (ADDL. R6 & R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.09.2011 IN I.A.NO.15410/2011)

¶19

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.REZIYA

¶20

R5 BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD R6 & R7 BY SRI.GEORGE BOBAN, SC, K.S.H.B.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No. 24674 of 2011(H)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶26

EXT.P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT F THE PETITIONER DATED NIL EXT.P3. COPY F THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P4. COPY F THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.2.2011.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :

¶29

EXT.R5 (A). COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 30.7.2009.

¶30

EXT.R5(B). COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.01.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R5 (C). COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.03.2011. ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶31

EXT.R5 (D). COPY F THE LETTER DATED 16.08.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITINER.

¶32

EXT.R5(E). COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXT.R5(F). COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 05.09.2011

¶34

EXT.R5 (G). COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED DATED 05.09.2011.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

==================

W.P.(C).No. 24674 of 2011

¶41

==================

¶42

Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T

¶43

The petitioner is the purchaser of a property, in Revenue auction, belonging to the 5^th respondent. The petitioner paid full purchase price. Long thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer set aside the sale granting the 5^th respondent one month's time to pay the amounts due from him to the State. That is under challenge in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the order suffers from serious infirmities insofar as no valid grounds have been stated for setting aside the sale. According to the petitioner, the sale can be set aside only on certain grounds recognised by law. The grounds mentioned in the impugned order are not grounds recognised by law is the contention raised.

¶44

I have heard the parties.

¶45

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I directed the parties to come to an amicable settlement. In fact, the matter was once posted before the Lok Adalath. But the parties could not come to an amicable settlement in the Lok Adalath on the amount of compensation to be paid to the petitioner. However, before me, the parties agree that the 5^th respondent will pay an amount of ` 1.7 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner.

¶46

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the

¶47

w.p.c.24674/11 - : 2 :-

¶48

following directions:

¶49

Respondents 1 to 4 shall see that the purchase price paid by the petitioner is returned to the petitioner within two weeks. The 5^th respondent shall pay to the petitioner an amount of ` 1.7 lakhs towards compensation on or before 30^th April, 2012. If the 5^th respondent does not pay the amount, the 5^th respondent will not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment and the writ petition will stand restored to file. The petitioner would also be free to move this Court for contempt of court against the 5^th respondent for not complying with the undertaking made before this Court.

¶50

sdk+

¶51

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶52

///True copy///

¶53

P.A. to Judge

Pavithran v. the District Collector, Alappuzha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavithran v. the District Collector, Alappuzha

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

Salahudeen a & Others Vs District Collector,Kollam & Others

P.K.Vasu Vs the Union of India

Dr.v.K.Hameed Vs Chief Manager (Authorised Officer)& Anbr

M/S. Erkoma Engineering Corporation Vs Intelligence Inspector

Popular Mega Motors (India) Ltd. Vs Intelligence Inspector

Sreedevi Amma Vs the Authorized Officer