A.G.RAVINDRANATHAN Vs. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K .VINOD CHANDRAN, J The petitioner challenges the Land Revenue Commissioner's order exhibited as Ext.P11. The brief facts necessary for resolving the dispute raised herein, are that the petitioner, who is an admitted defaulter of the 3rd respondent, was proceeded against, for the recovery of the dues under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act'). Petitioner's property, which is the subject matter of the proceedings before the authorities under the Act, was brought to sale and in public auction, the 4th respondent purchased it.

(2.) THE sale proceedings were challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector which went in favour of the petitioner by Ext.P6. The Deputy Collector (RR) KFC, Thiruvananthapuram, set aside the sale conducted by the Deputy Tahasildar (RR), KFC, Thrissur. The setting aside of the sale was for very many reasons as was noticed in Ext.P9 judgment. In any event, Ext.P6 order was challenged by the 4th respondent before the Land Revenue Commissioner and Ext.P6 was set aside by Ext.P7 order. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, took the matter up before the Government in revision; unsuccessfully, as is evidenced by Ext.P8.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would however, contend that a bare reading of Exts.P7 and P8 orders would reveal that the aspects considered by the Deputy Collector in Ext.P6 were gone into by the said authorities also. However, it is too late in the present case to make such a submission since the earlier judgment in which the 4th respondent was a party, clearly recorded that the salient aspects considered in Ext.P6 were not gone into by the authorities. In any event, Ext.P9 only ordered an open remand and the said aspects would necessarily have to be considered by the Land Revenue Commissioner on such remand having been made by Ext.P9. Hence, there would be absolutely no reason why this Court should detain itself on the issue whether the consideration made by the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Government was only with respect to the application not being in time. This Court has to confine the adjudication, in the present instance, to whether the impugned order is sustainable and is passed in consonance with Ext.P9 judgment.