Kerala High Court
V.Surendra Babu vs The Principal Secretary, Revenue (S) ... on 27 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 1745 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
V.SURENDRA BABU
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. LATE. S. VELAYUDHAN, VALIYAVILA VEEDU,
PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691504.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JAIRAM.V.MENON
SRI.K.R.RAGHUNATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (S) DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR
KOLLAM.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SRI. BIMAL K NATH, SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P. (C) No.1745 of 2018 2
EASWARAN S. , J.
-------------------------
W.P. (C) No.1745 of 2018
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of March 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging
Exts.P4 and P6 issued by respondents 2 and 1 respectively. The
facts as stated in the writ petition discloses that the petitioner
was a defaulter for the amount due to the Sale Tax Department
which was later settled under the Amnesty Scheme and a No
Dues Certificate from the assessing authority has obtained.
Pursuant to this, the petitioner approached the Tahasildar,
Revenue Recovery, Kollam on 15.5.2008 intimating him about the
No Dues Certificate and also requesting him to reconvey the land
after annulling all the charges on it. The said request appears to
have been considered and Ext.P4 order has been passed on
23.9.2015 wherein, the Additional Tahsildar took a view that the
property could be reconveyed only on payment of Rs.4,87,500/-
(Rupees Four Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only).
The petitioner, aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, seems to
have approached the Government on 13.10.2015 and the 1 st
respondent, vide Ext.P6 letter, took a view that, for reconveying
the property, the Government is not prepared to receive a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per Are and reconvey the property.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader brings to my
notice that as per Government Order referred to in paragraph
No.7 of the counter affidavit the Government has bid the property
in terms of Section 50 of the Revenue Recovery Act.
4. Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968
deals with Bidding on behalf of Government. In which, Section
50(2) reads as follows:
(2) When the property is put up for sale on the date to
which it was postponed under sub-section (1), at the time
and place specified in the notice,-
(i) if there be no bid, the officer conducting the sale may
purchase the property on behalf of the Government for an
amount of ten paise;
(ii) if the highest bid be insufficient to cover the arrears
referred to in sub-section (1) and those subsequently
accruing due upto the date of the sale and interest and
cost of process, such officer may bid on behalf of the
Government for an amount higher than such bid by ten
paise, and in either case the Government shall acquire the
property subject to the provisions of this Act.
5. In the present case, the petitioner has settled the
liability to the Sale Tax Department under Amnesty Scheme and
sought for reconveyance of the property on 20.11.2008 whereas,
the property was purchased by the Government on 28.6.2006.
Therefore, there was clearly a difference of three months in order
to enable the petitioner to fall within the period of two years. But
admittedly the petitioner's application is within the outer period of
five years which is permissible. But, the only point to be
considered by this Court is as to whether the petitioner should be
directed to pay the value of the property or the Government
should reconvey the property based on the fair value of the land.
6. I find considerable force in the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the property
which has been brought in by the Government for a liability of
sales tax which had been already settled by the petitioner under
the Amnesty Scheme. Had the petitioner come within a period of
two years, the 1st respondent would have been bound to
reconvey the property without insisting on any charges to be paid
by the petitioner.
7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am
of the considered opinion that the matter requires to be
reconsidered at the hands of the 1st respondent especially since
the petitioner had filed an application within the period of five
years. It is also a case where the petitioner had also discharged
the liability towards the sale tax. Therefore, there will be no loss
caused to the Government if the property is reconveyed.
However, that does not mean that the petitioner is entitled for
reconveyance of the property free of cost. What should be the
liability of the petitioner to pay for reconveyance is the question.
8. I am not impressed with the argument of the learned
counsel for the Government that, for reconveyance of the
property, the petitioner has to pay the entire value of the
property. The matter requires to be reconsidered in a more
reasonable manner. In a given situation, the Government is not
prepared to reconvey the property, the resultant position would
be that the property would be allotted to landless people. That
would infact infringe the constitutional right guaranteed under
Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Viewed in the above
perspective, the 1st respondent should take a holistic approach
on the entire issue.
Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order is set
aside. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the issue after
affording an opportunity of the petitioner for hearing. The
petitioner is free to point out his views by a written submission or
during the oral hearing to be afforded by the 1st respondent. The
entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time
the orders are passed, the Government shall not take any
coercive action pursuant to Ext.P7.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
NS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1745/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 03.12.2013 PASSED IN W.P.(C)
NO. 30094/2009.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17.01.2014 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O. (MS) NO.
483/2014/RD DATED 20.11.2014 PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B.10-53338/08
DATED 23.09.2015 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF WEBSITE
SHOWING THE DETAILS OF PETITIONER'S LAND.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.83391/S2/2015/REV. DATED 02.03.2017
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 429/17 DT.
31.11.2017(?) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
