Partly allowed

Sivaraman K.C v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Oct 2011OP/1823/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging revenue recovery notices for a loan disbursed under a farm house construction scheme. Finding the petitioners failed to comply with the requirement to produce a valuation certificate, the Court upheld the recovery but permitted repayment via four equal monthly installments.

What did the court decide?

The Court permitted the petitioners to clear the liability by paying the demanded amount in four equal monthly installments, with the first due on or before 30th November 2011. Default would invite fr

Sivaraman K.C Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

OP.No. 1823 of 2002(P)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

¶9

SIVARAMAN.K.C., S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, AGED 45 YEARS, KANDANGATTIL HOUSE, EDATHURUTHI P.O. THRISSUR - 680 703.

¶10

RAMESH.K.C., S/O. CHATHUKUTTY, AGED 31 YEARS, KANDANGATTIL HOUSE,EDATHURUTHI P.O. THRISSUR - 680 703.

¶11

BY ADV. MR. DENIZEN KOMATH

MS. MEREENA JOSEPH

RESPONDENTS:

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE MINISTRY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

¶17

TAHSILDAR (R.R), TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR.

¶18

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, MATHILAKAM BLOCK, THRISSUR.

¶19

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. SHIBU JOSEPH

¶20

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O.P.(C) NO. 1823 OF 2002

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE REF. NO. T.A. (1) 6432-/96 DATED 18.02.1997

¶25

EXHIBIT P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR VIDE REF. NO. B2-3233/2001 DATED 16.03.2001

¶26

EXHIBIT P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED VIDE REF. NO. EKB (38)/ 2000- 2001 DATED 29.05.2001

¶27

EXHIBIT P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE OF ATTACHMENT ISSUED VIDE REF. NO. B2/3233/2001 AGRI DATED 26.09.2001

¶28

EXHIBIT P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF the NOTICE UNDER SECTION 49(2) OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 18.12.2001

¶30

4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :

¶31

EXHIBIT R4 A : TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OF SCHEME DATED 18.02.1997

¶32

EXHIBIT R4 B : TRUE COPY OF BOND EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 02.06.1998

¶33

EXHIBIT R4 C : TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND PAGE OF THE BOND

¶34

EXHIBIT R4 D : TRUE COPY OF THE REEQUEST FOR ADVANCE DATED 5.6.1998

¶35

EXHIBIT R4 E : TRUE COPY OF THE PAYEE'S RECEIPT FROM THE PETITIONER FOR RS. 5000/- DATED 09.06.1998

¶36

EXHIBIT R4 F : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR 2ND INSTALMENT BY THE PETIITONER DATED 08.04.1999

¶37

EXHIBIT R4 G : TRUE COPY OF THE PAYEE'S RECEIPT FOR RS. 10,000/- DATED 08.04.1999

¶38

EXHIBIT R4 H : TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 16.02.1999

¶39

EXHIBIT R4 J : TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 14.03.00

¶40

/TRUE COPY/

¶41

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶42

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶43

¶44

O.P. No . 1823 of 2002

¶45

¶46

Dated, this the 19^th October, 2011

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

The petitioners are challenging Exts. P2, P4 and P6 notices issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, demanding a sum of Rs. 17,000/-, which is stated as the amount disbursed to the petitioners by way of loan for construction of a farm house. The case of the petitioners is that, pursuant to Ext. P1 Scheme enabling the deserving beneficiaries belonging to schedule caste communities to construct 'farm house', the first petitioner also happened to be included in the said Scheme and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was sanctioned to be disbursed by way of three installments; the first of which was of Rs. 10,000/- for starting the construction work; the second installment of Rs.10,000/- was to be disbursed when the construction reached at the lintel level and the last installment of Rs.5,000/- to be disbursed after completion of the entire work; subject to production of valuation certificate of the Assistant Engineer (Agriculture) in the prescribed form.

¶49

The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of execution of necessary agreements and satisfaction of all the norms prescribed,

¶50

O.P. No. 1823 of 2002

¶51

: 2 :

¶52

though the entire amount under the first installment was paid, only a sum Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 2000/- respectively were paid towards the second and third installments, which made the petitioners to run pillar to post to complete the construction. According to the petitioners, in spite of the hurdles, the construction was completed and when coercive steps were sought to be pursued for realization of the disbursed amount, Ext. P5 representation was preferred before the concerned Minister, whereby the first petitioner was informed by the concerned Secretary to the Government that the matter was being considered. Despite this, the respondents proceeded with Ext. P6 revenue recovery notice, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition, wherein an interim order was passed staying all further proceedings, on condition that, the petitioners deposited 50 % of the amount demanded.

¶53

During the course of hearing, the learned Government Pleader brought it to the notice of this Court that the petitioners did not comply with the conditions stipulated under the Scheme. It is also stated, with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit, that there is absolutely no fault or lapses on the part of the respondents and that the proceedings were taken only because of the fault on the part of the

¶54

O.P. No. 1823 of 2002

¶55

: 3 :

¶56

first petitioner in completing the construction as undertaken, it being contrary to the purpose and provisions of the Scheme. Reference is also made to the specific undertaking given by the first petitioner in Ext. R4(b) agreement, stating that, if for any reason the valuation certificate is not produced, the petitioner would satisfy the entire amount obtained under the Scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the construction was actually completed after initiation of the revenue recovery proceedings as pointed out in Ext. P5 representation preferred and that the valuation however was not completed or performed by the concerned authorities. It is also stated that the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit in view of the various schemes promulgated by the Government by way of 'Debt Relief Scheme' and other schemes notified at different points of time.

¶57

Considering the rival pleadings, the fact remains that, the petitioners have failed to produce 'valuation certificate' before the concerned authorities. It is also seen from the counter affidavit and also the documents produced and marked as Exts. R4 (h) (i) and (j) that the petitioner was served with various notices at different points of time, referring to the non completion of the farm house and to complete the construction and report the compliance, lest, the

¶58

O.P. No. 1823 of 2002

¶59

: 4 :

¶60

proceedings should be initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act. There is no case for the petitioners that, the petitioners have submitted any written explanation in response to the aforesaid notices and no copy of such proceedings has been produced before this Court.

¶61

In the said circumstances, this Court finds that, the action taken by the respondents is strictly in tune with the terms of the Scheme and also in tune with the condition/undertaking given by petitioner as per Ext. R4(b) en-shouldering the liability to satisfy the entire amount on non-production of the valuation certificate. As such, no interference is called for. However, taking note of the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are permitted to clear the liability by way of 'four' equal monthly installments; the first of which shall be paid on or before 30^th of November, 2011; to be followed by similar installments to be effected on the last working day of the following months. It is made clear that, if the petitioners commit any default in remitting the installments as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump. It is also made clear that this will not bar the way of the petitioners in approaching the Government or such other authorities for availing the benefits of the

¶62

O.P. No. 1823 of 2002

¶63

: 5 :

¶64

Scheme, if any, with regard to the waiver or reduction of the liability earmarked to the poor sections of the society. If any such application is preferred by the petitioners, it shall be considered by the 4^th respondent in accordance with law at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of such application.

¶65

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶66

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶67

kmd

Sivaraman K.C v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivaraman K.C v. State of Kerala

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

M.v.Augustine Vs State of Kerala

K.G.Gopinathan Vs State of Kerala

Cochin Yachat Club Vs State of Kerala

P,.Mohammedkunhi Vs Tahsildar

Krishnan.v.C. Vs Thahsildar

Isac Philip Vs State of Kerala