State Of Kerala vs Aleykutty Kunjappan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3360 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
                                     &
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
         TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944
                           WA NO. 2512 OF 2015
    AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 4293/2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
             SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.
     2       THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
             DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.
     3       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
             KOTTAYAM-2.
     4       THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
             KOTTAYAM-2.
     5       THE TAHSILDAR (RR)
             KOTTAYAM-1.
     6       THE VILLAGE OFFICER
             MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM-1.
             BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ASWIN SETHUMADHAVAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):

             ALEYKUTTY KUNJAPPAN
             KANJICKAL HOUSE, CHALUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
             BY ADVS.
             ALEX.M.SCARIA
             SARITHA THOMAS
             ALEN J. CHERUVIL


     THIS     WRIT   APPEAL   HAVING     COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.2512 of 2015                         2




                                      JUDGMENT

SHAJI P.CHALY,J.

This appeal is preferred by respondents i.e., the State and its officials in W.P.(C)

No.4293/2012, challenging the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated

22.6.2015. The subject issue relates to sale and purchase of a property belonging to

the 1st respondent/ writ petitioner, by the Government as bought-in-land. The writ

petitioner had liability under the Sales Tax Act, upon which, revenue recovery steps

were taken for realisation of the dues. A portion of the property of the petitioner was

attached under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, hereinafter called, "Act,

1968" and same was put up for public auction, however no bidders turned up and

the property was purchased on behalf of the Government for a nominal price of

Re.1 in contemplation of section 50(2)(i) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968.

Later sale was confirmed in spite of an application submitted by the petitioner under

section 53(1) of the Act, 1968, dealing with an application to set aside the sale on

the ground of material irregularity, mistake, etc.

2. The case put forth by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the property

thus purchased by the Government has not been applied to discharge the dues of

the petitioner. Rather the appellants issued another demand notice for realisation of

the very same amount and proceeded against the rest of the property of the

petitioner. Thereupon, petitioner remitted the entire amount including the arrears,

charges, interest etc. and obtained a discharge certificate.

3. According to the petitioner, she remitted the amount on an assurance given

by the appellants that on such payment, the property of the petitioner purchased by

the Government as bought-in-land, would be released to her. However, in spite of

receipt of the entire amount towards the arrears of sales tax & other charges,

interest etc., the appellants have failed to re-convey the property on the ground that

the application for re-conveyance should have been filed within two years of the

confirmation of sale, as stipulated in a notification issued by the Government in that

regard.

4. The paramount contention advanced by the writ petitioner is that having

received the entire dues from the petitioner along with other charges and interest,

the Government has received the arrears without any objection and therefore, if the

property purchased as bought-in-land, is permitted to be held by the Government, it

would be nothing but an unjust enrichment and double benefit to the Government. It

is the further case of the petitioner that no title was passed on to the Government

and therefore, the Government cannot exercise their right over the property. Various

contentions are also raised in the writ petition.

5. Anyhow, the learned Single Judge, after having found that the entire

amounts were received by the Government after confirmation of the sale without any

objection or protest, held that the Government is not entitled to retain possession of

the land, since the principle of estoppel would govern the field, thus preventing the

Government from taking up the contention that the application for reconveyance was

not submitted within two years from the date of confirmation of the sale.

6. The paramount contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader is

that so long as a Government Order is governing the field, that the application for re

- conveyance shall be made within two years from the confirmation of the sale, the

learned Single Judge was not right in directing the Government to re-convey the

property. It is also contended that the request made by the writ petitioner for re-

conveying the property was rejected by the Government, on the basis that the

application is not submitted within the time period prescribed under law , there is no

arbitrariness or other legal infirmities on the part of the Government in rejecting the

request, and therefore, the writ court should not have interfered with the order

passed by the Government. It is also submitted that by virtue of the provisions of

section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, on the Government purchasing the

property as bought-in-land, the Government becomes absolute owner of the

property and there is no further requirement of conveyance of the property by

registering the same.

7. We have heard learned Government Pleader Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan for

the appellants and Adv.Sri.Alex M. Scaria for respondent/writ petitioner, and perused

the pleadings and materials on record.

8. It is an admitted fact that the entire sales tax dues along with charges and

interest were paid by the writ petitioner after purchase of the property by the

Government as bought-in-land for Re.1. Even though the writ petitioner has not

filed an application within two years from the date of confirmation of sale in

contemplation of the Government Order, we are of the view that the Government

has accepted the entire dues along with interest and other charges without any

protest or objection in the year 2007 from the writ petitioner. If the property is still

allowed to be retained by the Government, definitely, the Government would be

double benefitted on account of sales tax dues from the writ petitioner, which would

lead to an unfair and unjust enrichment by the Government. The learned Single

Judge, exercising the discretion, has found that after having received money, the

Government is estopped from raising a contention that the application is not filed

within two years from the date of confirmation of the sale.

9. On an appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the

view that the stand adopted by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be

exceeding the jurisdictional powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. It was taking note of the entire facts and circumstances and the entire amount

received by the Government along with interest and other charges towards sales tax

arrears, the learned Single Judge found that the Government was not right in

retaining the property in question.

10. Taking into account the aforesaid legal and factual circumstances, we are of

the view that the appellants have failed to make out any case of jurisdictional error

or other legal infirmities justifying our interference in the judgement of the learned

Single Judge.

Needless to say, appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, since the

time period granted by the learned Single Judge has already expired, adequate steps

shall be taken to reconvey the property at the earliest possible time, and at any rate

within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

                                                     SHAJI P.CHALY
smv                                                     JUDGE