Kerala High Court
Anish Das vs The District Collector, Kottayam on 29 May, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3632 OF 2013
PETITIONER/S:
JOSHY P.V.
AGED 40 YEARS, PUNNOLI HOUSE, KONDOOR, THIDANADU O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 123.
BY ADV SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY FOR LABOUR &
REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM,PIN 686 566
3 THE TAHASILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, MEENACHIL, PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN
686 575
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, KONDOOR, THIDANADU O, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT,PIN 686 123.
5 THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR
TODDY WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, KOTTAYAM,PIN 686 566
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.K.D.BABU, SC, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND
BOARD
RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).5407/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) Nos.3632/2013 & 5407/2016 -2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 5407 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:
ANISH DAS
AGED 30 YEARS
ETTICKAL HOUSE, POONJAR, THEKKEKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT-686 582.
BY ADV SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
2 THE TAHSILDAR
REVENUE RECOVERY, MEENACHIL, PALAI P.O., KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT-686 575.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
POONJAR THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, POONJAR P.O., KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT-686 581.
BY ADVS.
SRI. K.P. HARISH, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).3632/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) Nos.3632/2013 & 5407/2016 -3-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of late Velayudhan and late
Chinnamma Velayudhan. Late Velayudhan and late Chinnamma Velayudhan
were licensees in respect of certain toddy shops of Erattupetta Range for the
year 1988-89. For the recovery of the following arrears, revenue recovery
proceedings was initiated against the parents of the petitioner.
Sl.
File No. RRC No. Amount
No.
1 K2/Epta-75 & 84/88-89 dated B7 61136/88/K Dis. Rs 24,000/- + 9%
14.09.1998 of WFI Kottayam Dated 20.12.1988 interest from 01.07
2 K2/Epta-75 & 84/88-89 Dated 02-05- B7 30693/88/K Dis Rs 31,510/- + 9%
1989 of WFI Kottayam dated 13.06.1989 interest from 01.12
3 K2/Epta-84/88-89 Dated 09.10.1991 B7 1446/92/K Dis Rs 11.287/-+ 9%
of WFI, Kottayam dated 21.01.1992 interest from 16.02
4 K2/Epta-75 & 84/88-89 Dated B7 26793/92/K Dis Rs 22,716/- + 9%
09.10.1991 of WFI, Kottayam dated 25.05.1992 interest from
09.11.1990
5 KB/3224/89 Dated 29.11.1989 of B7 72399/88/K Dis Rs 14,172+13000 +
AEC, Kottayam dated 22.10.1990 18% interest from
01.04.1989
An extent of property belonging to late Velayudhan and late Chinnamma
Velayudhan was sold in auction. Since there were no bidders the property was
treated as bought in land under the provisions of Section 50 of the Kerala
Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1968 Act'). The
petitioner challenges the sale on two grounds. It is submitted that the revenue
recovery proceedings were initiated and concluded after late Chinnamma
Velayudhan had expired and without proper notice to the legal heirs. It is
further contended that the land could not have been purchased by the
Government as certain portion of the arrears were due to the Toddy Workers'
Welfare Fund Board and going by the decision of this court in Ayisha
Teacher v. District Collector, Malappuram and another; 2009 (4)
KHC 106, the land could not be treated as bought in land by the Government
at least to the extent of dues payable to the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund
Board.
2. The learned Government Pleader submits with reference to the
counter affidavit filed by 3rd respondent that the contention taken before this
court that there was no proper notice to the legal heirs of late Chinnamma
Velayudhan is absolutely incorrect. He submits that the properties were
bought to sale after notice to the legal heirs of late Chinnamma Velayudhan as
is evidenced from the documents produced as Exts.R3 (a) and R3 (b). It is
submitted that since at least a part of the amount for which revenue recovery
proceedings were initiated was amount due to the Government, the
contention that the land could not be treated as bought in land is only to be
rejected.
3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Toddy Workers'
Welfare Fund Board submits that the contention taken on behalf of the
petitioner that there was no notice to the legal heirs of late Velayudhan and
late Chinnamma Velayudhan cannot be accepted for one more reason. It is
submitted that the petitioner was actively involved in the conduct of the
business of his parents and it cannot be said that the petitioner was unaware
of the proceedings initiated for recovery of amounts due from his parents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the total
amount for which revenue recovery proceedings were held was Rs.82,185/-
and the petitioner may be given one chance to pay off the amount due to the
Government and to the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Board. It is also
submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to pay off amounts in some
reasonable installments. It is also asserted that the land in question is still in
the possession of the petitioner and other legal heirs of late Velayudhan and
late Chinnamma Velayudhan. The learned Government Pleader and the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund
Board would submit that if this court were inclined to grant permission to the
petitioner to pay off entire arrears, the same must be with interest upto the
date of payment.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Toddy
Workers' Welfare Fund Board, I am of the view that this writ petition can be
allowed with conditions. The property belonging to late parents of the
petitioner was bought to sale under the provisions of the 'the 1968 Act' and
since there were no bidders, the same was treated as bought in land by the
Government under the provisions of Section 50 of 'the 1968 Act'. Though the
learned Government Pleader may be right in contending that a portion of
amount for which the property was brought to sale is the amount due to the
Government, this court cannot ignore the fact that there were amounts due to
the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Board also. In such circumstances
applying the law laid down in Ayisha Teacher (supra) before treating the
land as bought in land under the provisions of Section 50 of 'the 1968 Act' the
minimum requirement would have been that the Government issues notice to
the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Board also. Such procedure does not
appear to have been followed in this case. That apart the petitioner asserts
that the property is still in the possession of the legal heirs of late Velayudhan
and late Chinnamma Velayudhan and that they are willing to remit all the
dues upto date with interest due thereon. Therefore this writ petition is
allowed. The sale of 40 cents of land in Sy No.199/7 of Kondoor village as
bought in land under the provisions of Section 50 of the 1968 Act will stand
set aside subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will remit the entire amounts due to the Government
towards abkari arrears together with applicable interest upto the date of
payment in 6 equal monthly installments commencing from 15-06-
2024. Subsequent installments shall be paid on or before 15 th working
day of succeeding months.
(ii) The petitioner shall pay off the amounts to the Toddy Workers' Welfare
Fund Board towards arrears of Welfare Fund together with applicable
interest upto the date of payment in 6 equal monthly installments
commencing from 15-06-2024. Subsequent installments shall be paid
on or before 15th working day of succeeding months
(iii) The petitioner shall produce a notarized affidavit of all the legal heirs of
late Velayudhan and late Chinnamma Velayudhan before the 3 rd
respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment. The affidavit shall contain necessary
averments to indicate that all the legal heirs are aware of the
proceedings before this court and that they have no objection that the
sale being set aside at the instance of the petitioner;
(iv) If the petitioner defaults in paying any amount as directed above, he will
loose the benefit of this judgment.
It is made clear that no further extension of time will be granted under
any circumstances to make payments as directed above. It is also made clear
that the concerned among the respondents shall intimate the amounts
payable by the petitioner in terms of the directions contained in this judgment
on the petitioner approaching them with a certified copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is filed by the brother-in-law of the petitioner in W.P
(C) No.3632/2013. As noted above that writ petition was filed challenging the
sale of the property of late parents of petitioner in that writ petition by way of
proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. The property in
question was treated as bought in land by the Government under Section 50
of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. Proceedings under the Kerala
Land Conservancy Act were initiated against the petitioner herein on the
ground that he had entered into property in question after it had been treated
as bought in land by the Government and had cut down certain trees standing
thereon. Through the judgment in W.P (C) No.3632/2013 I have permitted
the petitioner therein to clear the arrears due to the Government and to the
Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board for which the revenue recovery
proceedings were initiated. Considering the terms of the judgment in W.P (C)
No.3632/2013, this writ petition is also disposed of directing that the Land
Conservancy proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein will stand
cancelled on the petitioner in W.P (C) No.3632/2013 clearing all the arrears
due to the Government and to the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board as
permitted in the judgment in that case. If such arrears are not cleared the
proceedings against the petitioner under the Land Conservancy Act shall
continue as the sale of the property has been set aside in the judgment W.P
(C) No.3632/2013 only subject to compliance of the conditions.
Writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
AMG
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3632/2013
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE
THAHASILDAR, MEENAHIL.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 25.01.1993 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5407/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 : COPYP OF THE SALE DEED DTD.6.3.2004.
P2 : COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD.18.12.2003.
P3 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.30.9.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P4 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.28.11.2013.
P5 : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD.30.8.2013 IN WPC NO.3632/2013.
