LAWS(KER)-2010-8-365

V SANALKUMAR Vs. TAHSILDAR CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK

Decided On August 17, 2010
V.SANALKUMAR Appellant
V/S
TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a dealer in rubber. The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 notice dated 28.6.2010 issued by the Village Officer, Nagaroor Village calling upon the petitioner to vacate the residential building wherein he is residing with his family. Ext.P3 recites that the Tahsildar, Chirayinkeezh Taluk within whose jurisdiction the property is situated, has issued a notice under Section 49(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 proposing to sell the residential building and the appurtenant land in public auction on 5.6.2010 and therefore the petitioner should vacate the said premises. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 notice on the ground that under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the Village Officer has no jurisdiction to either issue Ext.P3 notice or to call upon him to vacate the premises. It is contended that the petitioner can be evicted only after the revenue sale is held, in the manner prescribed under Section 58 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.

(2.) In the writ petition, the petitioner moved an application for interim stay. The learned single Judge while granting the interim order directed the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rupees five lakhs. The said order was challenged in W.A.No.1376 of 2010. When the writ appeal came up for admission before us we thought it fit that having regard to the nature of the controversy, the writ petition itself can be heard and disposed of. Accordingly the writ appeal and the writ petition were posted today for hearing and they were heard.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents fairly conceded that in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Hamsa v. Asst. Commissioner (2008 (3) KLT 180) the revenue authorities cannot direct a person in possession of the land which is proposed to be sold under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act to vacate the premises. In the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench held that the authorities conducting the revenue sale can only take over management under Section 37 of the Revenue Recovery Act or evict the person in possession after the revenue sale is confirmed in favour of the purchaser. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court it has to be necessarily held that Ext.P3 notice issued by the Village Officer calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises in his occupation cannot be sustained. In the result, we allow the writ petition and quash Ext.P3. However, it is clarified that nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way of the official respondents from proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968.