Kerala High Court
The Ramapuram Grama Panchayat vs The State Of Kerala on 22 November, 2024
2024:KER:90015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9019 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
THE RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAMAPURAM P.O.,KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN-686576.
BY ADV SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.
3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) GENERAL,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
REVENUE RECOVERY, MINI CIVIL STATION,
PALAI, PIN-686575.
5 THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER,
MEENACHIL, MINI CIVIL STATION,
PALAI, PIN-686575.
6 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
RAMAPURAM BRANCH,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN-686576.
WP(C) Nos.9019/2017 & 28128/2016 2
2024:KER:90015
7 THE RAMAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAMAPURAM P.O., KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN-686576.
8 JOSE JOSEPH,
ANITHOTTATHIL(KIZHAKKENATH), RAMAPURAM P.O.,
NKOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.
9 JEASON K. THOMAS,
KORATTIYIL HOUSE, POOVARANI, MEENACHIL,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN,SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.11.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).28128/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.9019/2017 & 28128/2016 3
2024:KER:90015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 28128 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
THE RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O. KOTTAYAM-
686 576.
BY ADV SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOTTAYAM- 686 001.
3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
LA (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM- 686 001.
4 JOSE JOSEPH,
ANITHOTTATHIL (KIZHAKKENATH) RAMAPURAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-
686 001.
5 JEASON K THOMAS,
KORATTIYIL HOUSE, POOVARANNI MEENACHIL,
KOTTAYAM- 686 001.
6 THE TAHSILDAR RR,
MEENACHIL, PALA- 686 012.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
KUM.M.ANJU THOMAS
WP(C) Nos.9019/2017 & 28128/2016 4
2024:KER:90015
SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN
SRI.JOMY GEORGE
SMT.A.MINI JOSEPH
SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.11.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).9019/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.9019/2017 & 28128/2016 5
2024:KER:90015
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.9019/2017 & 28128/2016]
The petitioner in these Writ Petitions is a Grama
Panchayat. The petitioner Panchayat required certain land, for
establishing a taxi stand. The State was requested to make
acquisition of certain properties for the afore purpose. The State
carried out the acquisition of properties at a price of Rs.24,691/-
per are. The price as per the afore rate was also admittedly
satisfied by the petitioner Panchayat to the State. However, the
land owners were not satisfied with the afore amount and they
preferred applications for enhancement. The Reference Court, by
Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.28128/2016, ordered enhancement to
Rs.2,42,060/- per are. The order of the Reference Court was
challenged by the State before this Court. This Court by Ext.P2
judgment, remanded the matter to the Reference Court for
reconsideration. However, the claimants filed appeals before the
Apex Court and by Ext.P3, the orders of this Court at Ext.P2 was
set aside, thereby restoring the Reference Court's order at
Ext.P1. Therefore, the liability to satisfy as fixed by Ext.P1 has
become final. It may also be noticed that the petitioner
2024:KER:90015
Panchayat had also filed a review application before the Apex
Court and the same also stood rejected by Ext.P4 order dated
07.11.2012.
2. In such circumstances, the State initiated coercive
proceedings against the petitioner for realisation of the balance
on account of the enhancement by Ext.P1 order. The revenue
recovery proceedings initiated as above is the subject matter of
challenge in W.P.(C) No.9019/2017. The prayer in W.P.(C)
No.28128/2016 is for a declaration that Ext.P1 and the findings
therein (order passed by the Reference Court) is not binding on
the petitioner.
3. I have heard Sri. Georgekutty Mathew, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ashwin Sethumadhavan, the
Senior Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondents herein.
4. Two issues arise for consideration in these Writ
Petitions. The first issue arising for consideration is with
reference to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The
contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to
the effect that in so far as there were no earlier adjudication of
2024:KER:90015
the liability, the State is not justified in proceeding against the
petitioner with reference to the provisions of the Revenue
Recovery Act. He contends with the reference to the provisions
of Section 5 of the Act as also the definition of the term "public
revenue due on land" and submits that the liability now sought to
be enforced does not fall within the afore category and hence the
recovery proceedings cannot be continued.
5. It is also submitted that the liability as of now sought
to be enforced is only a contractual liability and therefore there
cannot be any recovery with reference to the provisions of the
Revenue Recovery Act. He also relies on the judgments of this
Court in Anandan K. and Another v. State of Kerala and
Others [2009 (4) KHC 1002] and Paulose T. P. v. State of
Kerala [2024 (3) KHC 207].
6. However, I notice that the petitioner while
making a requisition to the State for effecting acquisition of
properties with reference to the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, was supposed to execute a bond. The
afore bond has been produced by the respondent in the counter
2024:KER:90015
affidavit filed by them, as Ext.R3(a). In the afore bond, it is
specifically admitted by the petitioner as under:-
"5. All sums found due to the Government under or
by virtue of this agreement shall be recovered from
the Bounden and its properties movable and
immovable, as if such sums are arrears of land
revenue under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue
Recovery Act, 1968 and in such other manner as the
Government may deem fit."
Thus, by virtue of the afore clause of Ext.R3(a), which is an
agreement / bond executed with reference to the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioner has already
admitted that the State would be entitled to proceed against
them for realisation of the arrears with reference to the
provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. In the light of the
afore, the petitioner may not be justified in contending that the
provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act are not attracted to the
facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The second issue arising for consideration is
with reference to the prayers made in W.P.(C) No. 28128/2016.
The petitioner contends that Ext.P1 award was issued without
notice to the petitioner and hence the enhancement ordered and
the subsequent judgments of this Court as well as of the Apex
2024:KER:90015
Court may not be binding upon them. At the first blush, the afore
contention appears to be attractive. At the same time, it is
noticed that upon coming to know of Ext.P3 judgment of the Apex
Court, the petitioner has filed an application for review before the
Apex Court and the said application is seen rejected by Ext.P4
order. In view of the afore, I am of the opinion that the prayers in
W.P.(C) No.28128/2016 cannot be accepted.
8. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is
not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in these Writ
Petitions. Therefore, these Writ Petitions would stand dismissed.
9. However, taking note of the persuasive submissions
made by Sri. Georgekutty Mathew, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, I permit the petitioner Panchayat to make an
appropriate representation to the State pointing out the relevant
facts and figures, seeking appropriate benefits from the
Government, within a period of three weeks from today. If such
an application is being filed by the petitioner, the State to
consider the afore, taking into account the financial hardships
and other constrains being faced by the Panchayat and extend
2024:KER:90015
whatever possible benefits to the petitioner. Taking note of the
fact that the petitioner is a Grama Panchayat, there will be a
further direction to the respondents 5 to 7 to lift the freezing of
the petitioner's bank account as seen from Ext.P16 produced in
W.P.(C) No.9019/2017 and permit the petitioner to operate the
said bank account, on the petitioner executing an undertaking
before the 2nd respondent therein to the effect that whatever
liability, to be re-fixed by the Government as afore would be
satisfied by the petitioner. It is also held that if the bank has
already issued any DDs' in favor of the Government, the
Government has to return the DDs' to the concerned banks and
concerned banks to re-credit the afore amount in the accounts of
the petitioner.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ANA
2024:KER:90015
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9019/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.3.2017
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.3.2017
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.3.2017
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGEMENT DATED
31.8.2010 IN LAR NO.54 & 55 OF 2008.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 7.1.2011 IN
LAA 1328/2010.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.7.2012 IN CIVIL
APPEAL NO.4291/2012.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.11.2012 IN
REVIEW PETITION NO.1971/2012 OF THE SUPREME
COURT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.12.2014 BY
3RD RESPONDENT RELATING TO LAR NO.54/2008.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.12.2014 BY
3RD RESPONDENT REGARDING TO LAR NO. 55/2008
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 9.7.2014 IN
E.P.9/2013 OF SUB COURT PALA.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 9.7.2015 IN EP
10/2013 OF SUB COURT PALA.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF SECTION 7 NOTICE DATED
27.2.2016 ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF SECTION 34 NOTICE DATED
27.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
2024:KER:90015
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.3.2016
ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.3.2017
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO. B5
817/2016 DATED 14.11.2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
2024:KER:90015
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28128/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDMENT DTD 31-8-2010 IN
LAR NO.54 & 55 OF 2008.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDTMENT DTD 7-1-2011 IN
LAA NO.1328 OF 2010.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 18-7-2012 IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4291 OF 2012.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 7-11-2012 IN
REVIEW PETITION NO.1971 OF 2012.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 6-120-2014 BY
3RD RESPONDENT RELATING TO LAR NO.54/2008.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6-12-2014 BY
3RD RESPONDENT RELATING TO LAR NO.55/2008.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DTD 9-7-2015 IN EP
9/2013 OF SUB COURT PALA.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DTD 9-7-2015 IN EP
10/2013 OF SUB COURT PALA.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF SECTION 7 NOTICE DTD 27-2-2016
ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF SECTION 34 NOTICE DTD 27-2-2016
ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD 25-3-2016
ISSUED BY THAHSILDAR.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD 23-3-2016
SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT IN FORM NO.A7.
