The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order declining confirmation of a revenue sale. It held the remedy was a revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner and disposed of the petition without prejudice to that right.
The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right to file a revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/22ND JYAISHTA, 1939
WP(C).No. 15267 of 2017 (G)
PETITIONER(S) :
N.L.GEORGE,
S/O.LUKA, AGED 50 YEARS, NELLUVELIYIL HOUSE, YAGAMON P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL
RESPONDENT(S) :
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, CIVIL STATION, IDUKKI-685 501.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, IDUKKI-685 501.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 503.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAGAMAN VILLAGE OFFICE, VAGAMON-685 503.
BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANSAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 15267 of 2017 (G)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 02/12/2016.
EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24/03/2017.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
W.P.(C) No.15267 of 2017
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2017
JUDGMENT
Ext.P5, which is under challenge in this writ petition, is an order under Section 54 of the Revenue Recovery Act declining confirmation of a revenue sale under the said Act. A revision is provided for under the Revenue Recovery Act against orders in the nature of Ext.P5 before the Land Revenue Commissioner. In the light of the said alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a revision challenging Ext.P5 order before the Land Revenue Commissioner. In
W.P.(C) No.15267 of 2017 -2-
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is also directed that if the petitioner prefers a revision as referred to above within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the interim order passed by this Court on 05.05.2017 to the effect that the property shall not be put to sale again, will continue until the revision is disposed of by the Land Revenue Commissioner. Needless to say that if the revision is preferred as directed above, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously, at any rate, within two months thereafter, with notice to the petitioner.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE
bpr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed in light of the alternative remedy under the Revenue Recovery Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.L. George
The District Collector, Idukki
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki
The Tahsildar, Peerumedu
The Village Officer, VagamOn
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
