Kerala High Court
Arunodhayam Khadi Producers ... vs State Of Kerala on 5 March, 2025
1
W.P.(C) No.11019 of 2019
2025:KER:18912
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11019 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
ARUNODHAYAM KHADI PRODUCERS INDUSTRIAL
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.K.V.IND(Q)155,
CHAVARA POST, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT V.SUMANGALA PILLAI,
W/O. RAJENDRA PILLAI, AGED 66 YEARS,
NEELAGIRI, KULANGARABHAGOM,
CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM
BY ADVS.
PHILIP T.VARGHESE
THOMAS T.VARGHESE
ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
K.R.MONISHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 KERALA KHADI GRAMA VYASAYA BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VANCHIYOOR.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035
3 THE PROJECT OFFICER,
DISTRICT KHADI AND INDUSTRIES OFFICE,
KOLLAM-691 001
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691 001
2
W.P.(C) No.11019 of 2019
2025:KER:18912
5 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY-690 518
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
SRI E G GORDEN SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C) No.11019 of 2019
2025:KER:18912
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, had obtained certain
credit facilities from the 2nd respondent Board. Insofar as the
petitioner defaulted repayments to the credit facilities, steps were
taken by the Board for realising the dues from the petitioner.
Certain notices were issued proposing the sale of the properties
as seen from Ext.P1 dated 28.02.2013. The afore notice was for
realisation of an amount in excess of Rs.26 lakhs. The petitioner
took up a contention that the total arrears so demanded were
inclusive of the interest component, and according to the
petitioner, the demand for interest with respect to advances by the
2nd respondent was not correct or legal. An appropriate
representation was also filed before the District Collector, as
evidenced by Ext.P3. This Court, by Ext.P5 judgment, had directed
the petitioner to avail the benefits of One Time Settlement Scheme
(for short, OTS Scheme) extended in the matter. However, insofar
as the benefits for the OTS Scheme were not so extended, the
petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No.1099 of 2015 before this Court. As
directed, an amount of Rs.10 lakhs was also paid during the
pendency of the writ petition, making the total payments to
2025:KER:18912
amounts in excess of Rs.15 lakhs. This Court, by Ext.P6 judgment,
disposed of the afore writ petition, directing the Board to
recompute the liability of the petitioner by excluding the interest
component.
2. The petitioner contends that, if the interest component
is so reduced, the payments already effected, as noticed above,
would be more than sufficient to clear the total arrears. This is
evidenced also from Ext.P7, wherein the liability is quantified after
deducting the interest component at Rs.14,70,727/-. An amount
of Rs.14,566/- was also returned to the petitioner as evidenced by
Ext.P8 letter of the 2nd respondent.
3. The petitioner sought for the return of the documents
with respect to a property covered in Re-Survey No.309/10 of
Block No.20 of Chavara Village, before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd
respondent, through Ext.P11 dated 26.06.2016, informed the
petitioner that the property referred to above has already been
converted as bought-in land. The Government also, by Ext.P12,
repeated the afore stand and informed the petitioner that the
property concerned has already been converted as Puramboke in
the light of the same being already proceeded against under
2025:KER:18912
Section 50 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter
referred to as the "RR Act" for short).
4. It is in the afore circumstances that the captioned writ
petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging Exts.P11 and P12
issued as above, and also seeking a declaration that the
respondents have no claim over the property referred to above.
5. I have heard Smt.K.R.Monisha, the learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned Senior Government
Pleader.
6. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner had
obtained certain credit facilities from the 2nd respondent and was
in arrears also. The petitioner originally took up the stand that
there was no interest liability, which stood accepted by this Court
in Ext.P6 judgment. On the basis of the afore, when the total
arrears were recomputed, the payments already made by the
petitioner were more than sufficient to clear the arrears, on
account of which some amounts were also refunded to the
petitioner. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner sought
for return of the documents with respect to the property in
question. I notice that it is only then, the petitioner, is informed
2025:KER:18912
about the proceedings taken against the property in question
under Section 50 of the RR Act. This is intimated to the petitioner
for the first time through Ext.P11 letter dated 26.06.2016,
followed with Ext.P12 communication from the Government.
7. In this connection, I notice that in the counter affidavit
filed by the 1st respondent also, the steps taken against the
property in question, under the provisions of the RR Act, as per
which the same has been converted as bought-in land, is seen
referred to. However, in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner,
the afore stand has been categorically denied by the petitioner as
under;
"4. The claim that property having an extent of 4.27 ares
comprised in Re Survey No. 309/10 of Chavara Village was
sold on 25.08.2000 is not a bonafide claim. Petitioner was not
informed of any such sale nor about any confirmation of sale
as alleged to have been taken place in favour of the
Government. The Encumbrance Certificate obtained by the
petitioner in respect of the property produced as Exhibit P13
also does not evidence such a sale. The claim of the 5 th
respondent that the land was taken into custody of the
Government is false and hence denied. The property has been
and still is in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner."
In the light of the afore stand, this Court had passed an order on
21.01.2025, directing the learned Senior Government Pleader to
2025:KER:18912
get appropriate instructions in that regard.
8. In reply, the learned Senior Government Pleader, would
point out that the relevant files are not available, presumably on
account of the efflux of time. However, he would emphatically
contend that the fact that the proceedings have been taken
against the petitioner under the provisions of the RR Act, leading
to the issuance of the orders converting the property in question
as bought-in land, has already been communicated to the
petitioner. I am at a loss to accept the afore contention raised by
the learned Senor Government Pleader for more than one reason.
I notice that the petitioner is before this Court in the third round
of litigation. In the earlier round of litigations also, the petitioner
had been complaining about the revenue recovery proceedings
taken against it. However, at those instances, the details of the
proceedings taken against the property in question with reference
to the provisions of Section 50 of the RR Act are not brought before
this Court. In the light of the afore, I notice the contention raised
in paragraph 4 of the reply affidavit referred to above and hold
that there were no proceedings issued with reference to the
provisions of Section 50 of the RR Act as against the property in
2025:KER:18912
question.
9. Furthermore, I notice that the petitioner, a
Co-operative Society, had obtained credit facilities from the 2nd
respondent Board and was successful in establishing that there
cannot be any demand for interest with respect to such credit
facilities. When that be so, full benefits on the basis of the afore
orders have to be extended to the petitioner.
10. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is
entitled to succeed.
Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting
aside Exts.P11 and P12 issued by respondents 2 and 1
respectively, and declaring that the respondents would have no
claim over the property in Re-survey No.309/10 of Block No.20 of
Chavara Village.
Needless to say that the concerned among the respondents
to return the original of the title deed deposited by the petitioner
with the 2nd respondent herein.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
anm
2025:KER:18912
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11019/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
28.02.2013 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
21.08.2013 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION DATED
21.08.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID SALE NOTICE DATED
19.03.2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2014
PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C)
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2015 IN
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.02.2016
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27.02.2016
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 02.03.2016
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CONTEMPT OF
COURT CASE (C) NO.1790/2015 DATED
14.11.2016
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.06.2016
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22.02.2018
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
NO.2700/18 DATED 12.04.2018 ISSUED BY
SRO, CHAVARA
2025:KER:18912
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12.07.2017 IN
W.P(C) NO.188701/2011 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.181/13/REV DATED
03-05-2013
