WP(C) NO. 3188 OF 2016 1 2025:KER:26981 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 3188 OF 2016 PETITIONER : BAIJU V.D., AGED 44 YEARS S/O.DHANAPALAN, VALLARKOTTU HOUSE, VATTAPPARAPOST, SENAPATHI, CHATHURANGAPPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DIST - 685 566. BY ADV SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENTS : 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION COMPLEX, PAINAVE P.O., KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI – 685 602. 2 THE TAHSILDAR R.R UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK OFFICE, TALUK OFFICE COMPLEX, NEDUMKANDOM, IDUKKI DIST - 685 556. SR.GP DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 3188 OF 2016 2 2025:KER:26981 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ......…............................................. W.P.(C) No.3188 of 2016 …................................................ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2025 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 notice of sale of immovable property, produced as Ext.P3, proposing to auction 68.80 ares of property situated in Chathurangappara village, Udumbanchola Taluk. Petitioner also seeks for a direction for consideration of a representation dated 14.01.2016 requesting the District Collector to sell the property, which has an extent of 81.04 ares, as a single lot. 2. Dr.Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that pursuant to Ext.P3 sale notice, an auction was held on 29.01.2016, and the property having an extent of 68.80 ares was purchased for an amount of Rs.9,02,000/-. It was also submitted that as far as the balance extent of 12.24 ares of property against which proceedings had in fact been initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, a mortgage was in existence and therefore the property could not be sold as a single lot in 2016. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that this writ petition has to be dismissed in the light of the subsequent events as pointed out by the WP(C) NO. 3188 OF 2016 3 2025:KER:26981 learned Government Pleader. 4. On 29.01.2016 sale pursuant to Ext.P3 had taken place. There was no interim order in force during the pendency of this writ petition to prevent such a sale. In such circumstances, setting aside Ext.P3 is not legally tenable. Further, a direction to consider Ext.P4 representation is also not legally justifiable, as the request to sell the entire 81.04 ares as a single lot is not possible, in the light of the sale pursuant to Ext.P3. In such circumstances, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed. sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/28/03/2025 WP(C) NO. 3188 OF 2016 4 2025:KER:26981 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3188/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14.1.16 SUBMITTED TO THE IST RESPONDENT