Kerala High Court
M.Rajan vs The State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2025
2025:KER:45571
W.P.(C).No.2884 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 2884 OF 2012
PETITIONERS:
* 1 M.RAJAN * (DIED)
S/O.MAYANDI, RESIDING AT KULAPPURA HOUSE,
KAKKATHODE, THENARI AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK.
**ADDL.P2 C.MAHADEVI,
: WIDOW OF M.RAJAN, AGED 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT
14/429, KULAPURA HOUSE, KAKKATHODE, THENARI P.O.,
ELAPULLY II, PALAKKAD - 678 622.
**ADDL.P3 R.ARUNA,
: D/O. LATE M.RAJAN, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT
KULAPURA HOUSE, KAKKATHODE, THENARI P.O.,
ELAPULLY II,
PALAKKAD - 678 622.
**ADDL.P4 ANITHA,
: D/O. LATE M.RAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT
169/1, MECRIKAR ROAD, R.S. PURAM, COIMBATORE -
641 002.
**(ADDL.P2 TO P4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 04/07/2023 IN IA 1/2023 IN WP(C))
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
SRI.B.DEEPAK
2025:KER:45571
W.P.(C).No.2884 of 2012
2
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE (H) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
PALAKKAD-678 001.
3 THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)
TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678 001.
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV MUHMED RAFIQ, SPL.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 24.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:45571
W.P.(C).No.2884 of 2012
3
S.MANU, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.2884 of 2012
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner for recovery of dues under Sales Tax Act and Toddy
Workers Welfare Fund Act. Petitioner's property having an
extent of 4.55 acres comprised in Sy.No.228/2B of Elappully
Village was bid by the Government for 10 paise. He approached
this Court in O.P.No.3509/1992 aggrieved by the sale. The
original petition was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated
22.5.1998.
2. Petitioner filed O.S.No.26/2003 before the Additional
Munsiff's Court, Palakkad challenging the sale. Suit was
dismissed. He filed A.S.No.271/2005 before the District Court
aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit. Appeal was dismissed by
the first Additional District Court, Palakkad. Thereafter,
R.S.A.No.770/2010 was filed before this Court. By judgment
2025:KER:45571
dated 19.7.2010 the appeal was dismissed. However, a direction
was issued to the Government to consider the representation if
any, filed by the appellant after depositing the entire arrears
due with other amounts due if any, towards sales tax and toddy
workers welfare fund.
3. Petitioner thereafter paid the amounts due from him
and approached the 1st respondent for re-conveyance of the
land. His request was rejected by Ext.P4 order dated
27.12.2011. Challenging the rejection, the above writ petition
was filed. On behalf of the 3rd respondent counter affidavit was
filed. During the pendency of the writ petition the original
petitioner expired. His wife and daughters got impleaded and
prosecuted the writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the sale in favour of the Government was illegal and therefore
the property was liable to be re-conveyed to the petitioners. The
learned counsel placed heavy reliance on the judgment in
Thirumalaiswamy.M. v. State of Kerala and others [2012
2025:KER:45571
(2) KHC 402], District Collector v. Subaida Beevi [2010 (1)
KLT 913] and the unreported judgment in W.P.
(C)No.20805/2015 dated 21.06.2024. Prime contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the judgments
cited was that in a situation where there were no bidders, the
property could have been purchased only on behalf of the
requisitioning authority and not for the Government. He
submitted that in Thirumalaiswamy's case the revenue
recovery was for amounts due under a loan transaction and the
requisitioning authority was a bank. The sale in favour of the
Government was hence held illegal by this Court. In Subaida
Beevi's case also amounts were due to a bank. The Division
Bench of this Court held that bidding on behalf of the
Government was hence not permissible. In the judgment in W.P.
(C)No.20805/2015, this Court considered a case in which
recovery was for amounts due to the Kerala Toddy Workers
Welfare Fund Board. This Court followed the judgment in
Thirumalaiswamy's case and declared that the sale in favour
2025:KER:45571
of the Government was illegal. The learned counsel further
submitted that in R.S.A.No.770/2010, this Court had specifically
directed the petitioner to remit the amounts due and the
petitioner complied with the said direction. He submitted that
after receiving the entire amount due from the petitioner the
State ought not to have refused to re-convey the bought in
land.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader contended
that the challenge against sale raised by the petitioner was
considered and rejected by this Court in the judgment in
O.P.No.3509/1992 rendered on 22.5.1998. He hence submitted
that the said judgment which became final long ago precludes
the petitioner from raising any fresh challenge against the sale.
He submitted that the property was attached on 7.7.1997 and
was bid by the Government on 30.7.1979. Attempt of the
original petitioner to get the sale unsettled by pursuing civil
remedies also failed. Dismissal of R.S.A.No.770/2010 on
19.7.2010 also precludes the petitioner from raising a fresh
2025:KER:45571
challenge against the sale held on 30.7.1979. He further
submitted that the property of the predecessor-in-interest of the
present petitioners was attached for realisation of Rs.26,973.04
towards sales tax dues and Rs.21,723.50 towards toddy workers
welfare fund dues. Hence, the attachment and sale were not
entirely for recovery of toddy workers welfare fund dues. It was
essentially for the recovery of sales tax dues also. The learned
Special Government Pleader hence submitted that the law laid
down by this Court in the judgments cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner has no application in the facts of the
case at hand. The learned Special Government Pleader place
reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.1128/2023. The Division Bench considered a plea for
re-conveyance of bought in land. The Division Bench held that
merely out of sympathy, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued
to return the property after the State has lawfully taken over
the property of a tax defaulter through a completed action. He
further contended that some Government Orders were
2025:KER:45571
governing the matter and under the Government Orders which
were in force at the relevant time defaulter should have
approached the Government for re-conveyance within two
years. He hence submitted that the writ petition is therefore
totally devoid of merits.
6. The sale in the instant case was confirmed on
27.10.1980. The defaulter filed O.P.No.3509/92 and this Court
rejected the challenge against the bid by judgment dated
22.5.1998. Moreover, the very same issue was decided against
the petitioner in R.S.A.No.770/2010 also by this Court. After
finding no merit in the contention raised against the sale, out of
leniency this Court directed the Government to consider the
request of the defaulter. Government thereafter examined the
matter and noted that 30 years had passed by the time the
request was considered by the Government, after the sale was
confirmed. In view of the Government Orders which governed
the field, the request was rejected. No fault can be found on
the part of the Government in rejecting the request. Reading of
2025:KER:45571
Ext.P4 shows that the relevant aspects were taken into account
by the Government and reasons for rejection of the request
have been clearly stated. No arbitrariness or illegality can be
attributed to Ext.P4 order.
7. Petitioner's contention relying on the judgments cited
can be of no help as the attachment and sale in the case at
hand was also for recovery of sales tax dues. In the cases cited,
situation was totally different. Amounts were not due to the
Government in those cases. Hence this Court held that, in view
of the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, bidding by the
Government in a sale for recovery of amounts due to another
institution was not permissible.
8. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.1128/2023, a writ cannot be issued for re-conveyance of
bought in land out of sympathy. The defaulter moved for
nullifying the sale only after long time. His original petition was
dismissed by this Court and on civil side the R.S.A. was also
dismissed. Taking into account the entire facts, I am of the view
2025:KER:45571
that no relief can be granted in this writ petition. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj
2025:KER:45571
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
R.S.A.No.770/2010 ON THE FILE OF THIS
COURT DTD.19.7.2010.
EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
DTD.28.4.2011.
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
THIRD RESPONDENT DTD.11.5.2011.
EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
FIRST RESPONDENT DTD.27.12.2011.
EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.P.C)No.26670/2008 ON THE FILE OF THIS
COURT DTD.6.2.2009.
