Allowed

Mejo Nirappel v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC24 Jul 2009WP(C)/5698/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed revenue recovery proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act where the agricultural loan was already paid. The court directed the respondents to revoke the 1991 sale confirmation and reconvey the property to the legal heirs within three months.

What did the court decide?

Revocation of sale on 3.4.1991 and issuance of proceedings to reconvey the property to legal heirs within three months.

Mejo Nirappel Vs State of Kerala and Others — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

------------------

¶6

MEJO NIRAPPEL, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW NIRAPPEL, NIRAPPEL HOUSE, JOSEGIRI P.O., CHERUPUZHA.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

---------------------

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF REVENUE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, THALASSERY.

¶13

4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR) KANNUR.

¶14

5. STATE BANK OF INDIA, PAYYANUR, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PAYYANNUR BRANCH, KANNUR DIST.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA R5 BY ADV. P.V. SURENDRANATH.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 5698 of 2009(F)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1 : COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.7189/1976

¶21

P1(A) : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT

¶22

P2 : COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, KADANNAPPALLY-PANAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶23

P3 : COPY OF THE NO-DUE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BANK DATED 27.8.2001.

¶24

P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO THEN REVENUE MINISTER.

¶25

P5 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.8655 OF 2004.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE.

app/-

V.GIRI,J.

W.P ( C) No.5698 of 2009

¶32

-------------------------Dated this the 24^th July, 2009

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioner's father availed an agricultural loan of Rs.3000/- from the 5^th respondent. Apparently, payment of instalment was defaulted and steps were taken by the 5^th respondent. The property was ordered to be sold by resort to revenue recovery proceedings under sections 52 and 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act.

¶35

The entire amount due to the bank had been discharged by the petitioner's father in the year 1994 itself and this is evidenced by Ext.P3 certificate issued by the bank. Petitioner has therefore filed Ext.P4 representation for reconveyance of the property. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶36

i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to release the property now belong his mother and siblings covered in Ext.P1, to the petitioner within one month.

¶37

W.P ( C) No.5698 of 2009

¶38

¶39

ii) to declare that the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased father of the petitioner are entitled to get the property covered by Ext.P1 free of all encumbrances.

¶40

iii) to call for Order No.F.17435/88 dated 3.4.1991 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

¶41

iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order to the respondents to cancel all proceedings pursuant to the confirmation of the sale.

¶42

v) issue any other writ order direction as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶43

There is no dispute that the amount due to the

¶44

bank has been paid. There is no other reason why the property of the petitioner was proceeded against under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. It could have been initiated only for the purpose of realising the dues, if any, from the petitioner. Since the amount has already been paid, necessary proceedings shall be issued by the 4^th respondent holding that the sale effected on 3.4.1991 in relation to the property covered by Ext.P1 certificate stands revoked. The property shall be reconveyed to the legal heirs of the original defaulter. Necessary proceedings will

¶45

¶46

W.P ( C) No.5698 of 2009

¶47

be issued within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that if there is any other subsisting attachment over the property, then this direction will be subject to the same. In such circumstances, the 4^th respondent shall issue an order mentioning the subsistence of such attachment or encumbrance over the property.

¶48

(V.GIRI,JUDGE)

¶49

app/-

Mejo Nirappel v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mejo Nirappel v. State of Kerala and Others

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

Sreenesh Vs Santhosh.a.G.& Another

C.S.Prakash Vs the R.T.a., Idukki

Salbia K.Salam Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University

Indian Haj Umrah Group Association Vs Anil Trigunayat

Ibrahim Khaleel Vs the District Collector,Kasargod

Dr.v.v.Pyarelal Vs State of Kerala