Dismissed

The Commissioner of Land Revenue v. a.P.Arumughan

Kerala HC8 Nov 2010WA/831/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision dismissing revenue recovery proceedings initiated nearly 40 years after the cause of action arose, characterizing the debt as time-barred and relying on the Amendment Scheme norms to determine a nominal balance.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings characterized as time-barred; appeal against Single Judge order dismissed.

The Commissioner of Land Revenue Vs a.P.Arumughan — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶5

WA.No. 831 of 2008

¶6

---------------------AGAINST JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.18333/2004 DATED 28.11.2007

¶7

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC

¶8

¶9

THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM.

¶10

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶11

TAHSILDAR, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS

¶13

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶14

¶15

A.P.ARUMUKHAN, S/O.KARAPPUNNI, AYIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, POROORKARA, EDAPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

BY SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI, SR.ADVOCATE

¶17

ADV. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.

W.A. No. 831 of 2008

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2010

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶26

The issue involved in this writ appeal is with regard to the correctness and sustainability of the steps taken to realise the alleged arrears merely resorting to the remedy under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act nearly 10 years after the arising of the cause of action in the year 1968. Admittedly, the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated only in the year 1978; pursuant to which some property which belonged to the defaulter was sold in public auction and a portion of the liability be realized. Thereafter, the concerned respondents waited for nearly three decades to initiate further proceedings, which made the defaulter to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18333 of 2004 in respect of the cause of action regarding recovery of the loss sustained in an abkari auction held in the year 1968-69.

¶27

After referring to the inordinate delay and also the loss

¶28

of the property to an extent of 31 cents for a paltry amount pursuant to

¶29

W.A.No.831 of 2008

¶30

¶31

the public auction held and also the trivial amount remained to be satisfied and further observing the fact that the Government had extended the benefit of Amnesty Scheme to the defaulters earlier, the learned Judge directed the issue to have settled on remittance of a sum of `30,656/-; making it clear that the payment was to be effected on or before 31.1.2008. The challenge raised in the writ appeal preferred at the instance of the revenue/State is mainly that, no such scheme was available on the date of passing the impugned judgment.

¶32

The learned Government Pleader submitted during the

¶33

course of hearing, that the amount ordered to be satisfied was not remitted from the part of the writ petitioner/respondent; which statement was vehemently rebutted from the part of the respondent, referring to the payment effected, also producing the receipt for perusal of the Court (subsequently conceded by the State). It is also relevant to note that the learned Single Judge has not simply directed to extend the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme, but fixed the balance liability to be discharged by the defaulter as `30,656/-, adopting the 'norms' under the Amnesty Scheme. That apart, we find that the cause of action

¶34

W.A.No.831 of 2008

¶35

¶36

arose in the year 1968-69 and that the recovery proceedings were admittedly initiated for the first time, resorting to the Revenue Recovery Act, only in the year 1978. This being the position, the steps pursued from the part of the appellants were more to realise a time barred debt. The course pursued in such circumstances is not liable to be proceeded with any further, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court as per the decision reported in State of Kerala v. V.R.Kalliyanikutty (1999 (2) KLT 146). In the above circumstances, we find that the appeal preferred by the Revenue is devoid of any merit and no interference is warranted.

¶37

Writ appeal is dismissed accordingly.

¶38

J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice

¶39

P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge

¶40

vns

The Commissioner of Land Revenue v. a.P.Arumughan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Land Revenue v. a.P.Arumughan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Chandran Pillai Vs N.R.Das

Gopalakrishnan Vs Asharaf

Sheriff Nazimudeen Vs State of Kerala

K.S.E.Board Vs K.T.Abdul Kalam Azad

V.Renjeev Vs the Secretary

K.Suresh Vs K.S.E.B