Divakaran vs The Deputy Collector
2022 Latest Caselaw 479 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
         THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 23RD POUSHA, 1943
                                CRP NO. 393 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LAR 1/2015 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT
                           & SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/1ST CLAIMANT:

             DIVAKARAN
             AGED 62 YEARS
             S/O.KARTHIYANI AMMA, THONURE HOUSE, PARUVASSERY POST,
             AYAKKAD AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
             NOW RESIDING AT KRISHNAPRIYA, KOTTUKARA, KONDOTTY (P.O.)
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 638.
             BY ADVS.
             JACOB SEBASTIAN
             K.V.WINSTON
             ANU JACOB

RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 2 TO 4:

     1       THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR
             LAND ACQUISITION (NATIONAL HIGHWAY),
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
     2       THE CHIEF ENGINEER
             NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
     3       KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
             (KELTROL), KELTRON HOUSE, VELLAYAMBALAM,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 033,
             REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER.
     4       C.K.CHAMUNNI
             S/O.KANDAN, KARUVAPPADAM, MANGALAM DESOM,
             ANCHUMOORTHY (P.O.), VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 682, NOW RESIDING AT
             MELACHOORKUNNU, KANNAMBRA AMSOM,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 686.
     5       REMANI
             W/O.C.K.CHAMUNNI, KARUVAPPADAM, MANGALAM DESOM,
             ANCHUMOORTHY (P.O.), VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 682, NOW RESIDING AT
             MELACHOORKUNNU, KANNAMBRA AMSOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
             678 686.
             SR.GP K.DENNY DEVASSY,
             ADV.M.A.ZOHRA FOR R3,
             ADV.MATHEWS K.PHILIP FOR R2

     THIS   CIVIL    REVISION    PETITION   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
13.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP NO. 393 OF 2021
                                 -2-


                             ORDER

Dated this the 13th day of January, 2022

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115

of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging award dated 22.12.2020

in L.A.R No.1/2015 on the file of the Additional District Court-II,

Palakkad. As per the impugned award, the learned District Judge

allowed grant of Rs.27,14,861-68 in favour of the decree holder (in

E.P.238/2011 pending before the Sub Court, Palakkad), who is the

3rd respondent herein. Before the reference court, Palakkad, the

claim put up by the petitioner herein is that he is a bona-fide

purchaser of the property attached by the decree holder and

therefore, his property cannot be proceeded to discharge the

decree debt of the 3rd respondent.

2. Going by the award, in paragraph 12, the learned

District Judge stated that, as per the verdict in Ex.F.A.No.7/2016,

this Court already found that the petitioner herein was not a bona-

fide purchaser of the said property. E.F.A. No.7/2016 is an appeal

filed by the petitioner before this Court challenging the dismissal of

his claim petition (E.A.411/2012) in respect of the acquired

property, wherein the Sub Court, Palakkad found that the CRP NO. 393 OF 2021

petitioner is not a bonafide purchaser. The said finding is not under

challenge, admittedly. Therefore, the contention raised by the

petitioner to defeat the claim of the 3 rd respondent, who is the

decree holder in E.P.238/2011 who got attachment in respect of

the property, even prior to purchase of the said property by the

petitioner herein, cannot be defeated by reiterating the contention

stating that the petitioner is a bona-fide purchaser of the property.

The claim on the premise that the petitioner is a bona-fide

purchaser is too weak contention. That apart, this Court already

negatived the petitioner's contention as of a bona-fide purchaser.

In view of the matter, by exercising limited power of the revision,

nothing remains in this matter to be decided since the order is

perfectly in order.

In view of the matter, I am inclined to dismiss the petition

and accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr