Partly allowed

Kuriachan George v. Rajee & Ors.

Kerala HC10 Nov 2011RP/743/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition, filed by the 6th additional respondent in a writ petition, sought to modify observations regarding the failure to remit the balance sale price during property auction pendency. The court allowed the petition to delete the specific observation about the failure to remit. The question of compensation entitlement is left open for the revenue authority.

What did the court decide?

The observation in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment stating that the auction bidder had failed to remit the balance sale price is deleted.

Kuriachan George Vs Rajee & Ors. — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 743 of 2011(H)

¶6

-------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1474/2010 Dated 20/06/2011

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 6TH ADDL.RESPONDENT

¶8

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

¶9

KURIACHAN GEORGE, VEZHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLYAMKUDY, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5

¶12

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

¶13

1. K.S.RAJEEV, AGED 54, S/O.SUKUMARAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ORIGINALLY RESIDING AT KUZHITHOLU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT AND NOW RESIDING AT KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERUMELY P.O., ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 509.

¶14

2. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 506.

¶15

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KATTAPPANA BRANCH, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PIN - 685 515.

¶16

4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KATTAPPANA BRANCH, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PIN - 685 515.

¶17

svs

¶18

...................2/-.....

¶19

...2...

¶20

R.P. NO.7432011

¶21

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. PIN - 685 565

¶22

6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, UDUMPANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PIN - 685 554.

¶23

R1 BY ADV. SRI. G. SREEKUMAR

¶24

R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAITHU MUHAMMED, SC, KFC R4 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAM KUMAR

¶25

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

svs

¶27

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J.

¶28

R.P. No. 743 OF 2011

¶29

DATED THIS THE 10^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

This Review Petition is filed by the Additional 6^th respondent in the writ petition, seeking modification of the observations contained in the judgment, to the extent that he had failed to remit the balance sale price. It is stated that, in fact, the balance sale price was not deposited only because of pendency of the writ petition and only in view of the payments made by the defaulter during pendency of the writ petition. It is further stated that during pendency of the writ petition the 4^th respondent had given instructions, not to remit the balance amount. According to the Review petitioner, the observation contained in the judgment to the effect that bidder had failed to remit the balance sale price, will stand in the way of his claiming compensation on the amounts returned, as contemplated under Section 52 (2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1988.

¶32

Heard learned counsel appearing for all the parties. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view

¶33

R.P. No.743/2011 -2-

¶34

that the Review Petition can be allowed to the extent of modifying the judgment deleting the observation contained in paragraph 5 thereof to the extent that the auction bidder had failed to remit the balance sale price.

¶35

Hence the Review Petition is allowed and the observation contained in paragraph 5 to the extent that, “the auction bidder had failed to remit the balance sale price”, is hereby deleted.

¶36

The question whether review petitioner is entitled

¶37

for any amount as contemplated under section 52 (2) is left open for decision of the revenue recovery authority concerned.

¶38

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶39

AMG

¶40

True copy

¶41

P.A to Judge

Kuriachan George v. Rajee & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuriachan George v. Rajee & Ors.

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

Joseph Kavalam Vs Reghunathan

P.K.Subodayan Vs Joint Registrar and Others

K.Manoharan Vs State of Kerala & Others

Chacko Joseph Vs N.Musthafa

Madhu.K.James Vs State of Kerala

Devasia Abraham Vs the State Bank of India and Another