Dismissed

Sunny George v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC25 Feb 2008WP(C)/1811/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged re-initiation of revenue recovery proceedings against property previously excluded from sale. Court held Sections 62 and 64 do not prohibit subsequent sale if arrears remain unpaid. Writ petition dismissed as respondent justified. No procedural violation found.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition directed to be dismissed, upholding validity of revenue recovery proceedings by Ext.P10.

Sunny George Vs the Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 1811 of 2008(N)

PETITIONER:

SUNNY GEORGE, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MEENKKULAM,CHANNAPETTA P.O ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR,

¶14

TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM, PUNALUR P.O.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM.

¶17

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.1811 of 2008

¶21

¶22

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2008

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P10 proceedings by which the revenue recovery action initiated under Section 36 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.

¶25

The facts of the case are that for the assessment year 1996-97, the assessment was completed under Ext.P6. The petitioner filed Ext.P6A appeal against the assessment order. When recovery proceedings were initiated, this Court in Ext.P7 judgment, directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is stated that a conditional order of stay granted was complied with. Finally, the appeal was rejected on the ground of non payment of admitted tax.

¶26

When steps were taken for sale under the Revenue Recovery Act that was challenged by the petitioner before this Court which resulted in Ext.P9 judgment by which instalment facility was granted. Here again the conditions were not complied by the petitioner. Finally properties were brought for

¶27

WPC1811/2008

¶28

¶29

sale under the Revenue Recovery Act.

¶30

According to the petitioner, 10 cents and residential building were excluded when the revenue recovery sale was effected. It is stated that after the conclusion of the sale, by issuing Ext.P10, the property that was allegedly excluded in the first round of revenue recovery sale is again proceeded against. It is challenging the revenue recovery action by Ext.P10 that this Writ petition has been filed.

¶31

Counsel contends that in view of Sections 62 and 64 of Revenue Recovery Act, the property which was one excluded from the sale, could not have been proceeded against again. On a reading of Sections 62 and 64, I am not in a position to infer a conclusion as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 62 only provided that the required extent of property of a defaulter to discharge the arrears of public revenue due on land shall be sold. Section 64 deals with apportionment of the sale proceeds. These sections, do not lead to a situation that if any portion of the attached property is initially excluded from sale, the same portion shall not be sold at a later point of time even if the arrears have not been fully realised.

¶32

WPC1811/2008

¶33

¶34

Going by the statement filed by the respondents even presently, about 1.78 crores is due to be realised from the petitioner. If that be so, in my view respondents are perfectly justified in initiating proceedings against the available property of the defaulter.

¶35

The other contention that is now raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before issuing Ext.P10 notice under Section 36 of the Revenue Recovery Act, the procedure as contemplated under Sections 34 and 36 have not been complied with. Though this contention has not been urged in the writ petition, learned counsel argued this point vehemently. First of all, the fresh attachment as contemplated under Section 36 was unnecessary in this case as the property was already under attachment from even prior to the earlier sale. If that be so, the petitioner cannot capitalise on Ext.P10.

¶36

In my view, in the absence of any grounds, the writ petition is only to be dismissed.

¶37

The writ petition fails and dismissed.

¶38

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶39

csl

Sunny George v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny George v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.S.Sinil Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission

Vasantha Vs Secretary, Rta/Rto, Vatakara

K.Mohammedkutty Vs the Secretary, R.T.a., Malappuram

Roy Zachariah Vs the Rta, Kottayam.

Sree Narayana Guru Smaraka Vs the Village Officer

Chattali Kunhalan Vs the Secretary, Rta