Thalaprath Narayani vs The Special Deputy Tahsildar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2372 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

     THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

                     WP(C).No.9350 OF 2011(P)

PETITIONERS:
       1     THALAPRATH NARAYANI
             W/O.T.T.V.GOVINDAN
             THALAKKALE VEETTIL, NEAR TERU READING ROOM,,
             PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

      2      T.P.HAREESH KUMAR
             THALAKKALE VEETTIL, NEAR TERU READING ROOM,,
             PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

      3      T.T.V.LALU
             THALAKKALE VEETTIL, NEAR TERU READING ROOM,,
             PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.M.SASINDRAN
             SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

RESPONDENTS:
      1      THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
             (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALIPARAMBA, TALUK OFFICE,,
             TALIPARAMBA-670 141, KANNUR DISTRICT.

      2      THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER
             FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA(F.C.I)
             KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      3      THE DISTRICT MANAGER
             FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA(F.C.I)
             MUZHAPPILANGADU, KANNUR-670 003.

      4      THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
             THALASSERY-679 532, KANNUR DISTRICT.

             R1 & R4 BY SMT. REKHA C NAIR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
             R2 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.9350 OF 2011(P)

                                           2

                                     JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of January 2021

This writ petition has been filed challenging Revenue

Recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners. Certain

extent of land belonging to the petitioners was acquired for the

purposes of the Food Corporation of India. In a land acquisition

reference, the Subordinate Judges Court, Payyannur determined

the land value to be Rs.7,000/- per cent. This Court in Land

Acquisition Appeal No.691 of 2007 set aside that judgment of the

Subordinate Judges Court, Payyannur and restored the matter to

that Court for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity to

both sides to adduce further evidence. In the meanwhile, the

entire amount of enhanced compensation determined by the

Subordinate Judges Court was deposited and the petitioners

received that amount following an application made to that

Court. After the remand, the land value was reduced to

Rs.4,500/- per cent. That judgment and decree of the

Subordinate Judges Court (after the remand) has admittedly

become final.

2. Since the petitioners had withdrawn the entire

enhanced compensation following the disposal of L.A.R No.59 of

2004 originally, certain amount had to be refunded. It is to WP(C).No.9350 OF 2011(P)

recover this amount that the Revenue Recovery Proceedings

have been initiated by the Revenue Authorities. A demand notice

under Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act and a further

demand prior to attachment of land under Section 34 of the

Revenue Recovery Act have been issued to the petitioners. This

Court through an interim order passed on 24.03.2011 stayed

further proceedings of recovery pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3. The

said interim order was extended from time to time. However, on

10.08.2011, this Court imposed a condition on the petitioners

while extending the interim order by directing them to pay an

amount of Rs.80,000/- within one month from that date. It is

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said

amount has been paid.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit

that the amount now sought to be recovered is excessive and

that actually the amount to be refunded is much less than the

amount now sought to be recovered. He would submit that the

calculation provided in the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th

respondent in this Court is actually incorrect. The learned

Standing Counsel for the Food Corporation of India would

however contend that the amount sought to be recovered is the

actual amount payable by the petitioners and that the petitioners WP(C).No.9350 OF 2011(P)

cannot have any dispute regarding the matter as the issue is

covered by the judgment of the Subordinate Judges Court,

Payyannur following the remand by this Court. The learned

Government Pleader would also support the contentions raised

by the learned Standing Counsel for the Food Corporation of

India.

4. I notice that under sub section (2) of Section 34

of the Revenue Recovery Act, it is open to a defaulter against

whom the proceedings are initiated under the Revenue Recovery

Act, to raise an objection regarding the amount sought to be

recovered by approaching the Collector of the district concerned.

If such objection is raised, the provision requires the Collector or

the Authorised Officer as the case may be, to enquire into the

objection and record a decision before proceeding to attach the

immovable property of the defaulter. Ext.P3 is a notice issued

under Section 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Considering the

fact that the petitioners are objecting to the calculation shown in

the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent and considering

the fact that an amount of Rs.80,000/- has already been paid

following the order of this Court on 10.08.2011, I deem it

appropriate to permit the petitioners to file an objection before

the District Collector, Kannur, who shall, on receipt of such WP(C).No.9350 OF 2011(P)

objection issue notice to the petitioners and to the Senior

Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India,

Thiruvananthapuram (2nd respondent herein) and either by

himself or through an Authorised Officer determine such

objection and decide upon the actual amount payable by the

petitioners. On such determination, the petitioners will be given

six weeks time to pay any amount that may be found payable by

the Collector or the Authorised Officer. The petitioners shall file

their objection before the District Collector, Kannur along with a

copy of the writ petition and a copy of this judgment within a

period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy

of this judgment. The District Collector or the Authorised Officer

will proceed to determine the objection after hearing the parties

as aforesaid within a further period of two months. Till the expiry

of six weeks from the date of determination of the amount, if

any, payable by the petitioners, all coercive steps under Exts.P2

and P3 shall remain suspended.

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE DK WP(C).No.9350 OF 2011(P)

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 9-2-2010

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED NIL

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 34 DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL