Disposed

K. Raveendran v. Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board

Kerala HC3 Sept 2012WP(C)/10949/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to annul a property sale initiated under revenue recovery proceedings. The petitioner, who had disputed liability for secured dues, successfully cleared the debt. The High Court directed restoration of the property upon payment of collection charges and compensation to the purchaser.

What did the court decide?

Sale cancelled upon payment of collection charges and `75,000 compensation; property restored to petitioner; purchaser's deposit to be refunded.

K. Raveendran Vs Kerala Khadi & Village Industries… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/12TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 10949 of 2012 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 55 YEARS SONIA COTTAGE, DARSAN NAGAR, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O. PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER THENMALA-695001.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHPURAM-695001.

¶13

4. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

5. SMT. DHANYA HOUSE NO. D.N.545, DARSAN NAGAR, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O. PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR

¶16

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RENNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMBIL BY SRI.R.S.HARI KUMAR ,SC,KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0309-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WPC NO.10949/12

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO NO. PCB/TVM-DO/COM/1781/2006 DATED 24-06-2006 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KB.3394/2005/R1(CBC) DATED 1110-2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INTIMATING THE DEATH OF PETITONER'S MOTHER KOCHU PENNU.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR RECEIPT OF MONEY ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MODEL HOSPITAL, PEROORKADA ETC.

¶26

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 21-03-2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶27

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 02-05-2012.

¶28

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT 11.7.12.

¶29

EXTS OF R5

¶30

EXT.R5(a): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF RS.1,10,000 AS EMD ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT'S OFFICE ON 26.4.12.

¶31

EXT.R5(b): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF RS.77,500 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT'S OFFICE ON 26.4.12.

¶32

EXT.R5(c): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF RS.10,62,500 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT'S OFFICE ON 21.5.12.

//True Copy//

PA to Judge

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10949 OF 2012

¶37

===================

¶38

Dated this the 3^rd day of September, 2012

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

Petitioner had liability to respondents 1 and 2. For the recovery of the said liability, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and finally by Ext.P5 notice under Section 49 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 2.2 Ares of his property was proposed to be sold for realising 5,91,733 due to the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent and 1,24,159 due to the 2^nd respondent together with interest and other charges. It appears that, in pursuance to Ext.P5, sale was conducted in which the 5^th respondent was the successful purchaser. According to the 5^th respondent, the property was purchased by her for `12,50,000, which was paid in two instalments made on 26/4/12 and 21/5/12. In the meanwhile, petitioner filed Ext.P6 application before the District Collector stating that he was ready to deposit the amount due to respondents 1 and 2 and sought cancellation of the sale. It was thereafter that he filed this writ petition for the same relief.

¶41

2 When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner produced certificates issued by respondents 1 and 2

¶42

:2 :

¶43

WPC.No.10949/12

¶44

which according to him show that the liability due to the 1^st respondent was fully settled on 30/6/12 and the liability due to the 2^nd respondent was settled on 30/8/12. On this basis, counsel seeks invalidation of the sale conducted in favour of the 5^th respondent.

¶45

I heard the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent who opposes the prayer and according to the counsel, sale was conducted validly and the petitioner did not avail of the remedy available to him under Section 52 of the Revenue Recovery Act.

¶46

Although it is a fact that the petitioner did not remit 5% of the purchase money and the amounts that were due to respondents 1 and 2 when he made Ext.P6 before the District Collector, according to him, subsequently the liability due have already been cleared. In such a situation, the further liability if any that of the petitioner can only be for payment of collection charges payable under the Revenue Recovery Rules and on such payment and on compensating the 5^th respondent, there is no reason why the property shall not be restored to him. In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:-

¶47

WPC.No.10949/12

¶48

:3 :

¶49

(1) That along with a copy of this judgment and the certificates indicating discharge of the dues to respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner shall approach the 4^th respondent and shall pay the collection charges that are due from him for the sale that was conducted pursuant to Ext.P5.

¶50

(2) On remittance of the collection charges as above and on payment of a sum of `75,000 to the 5^th respondent by way of compensation for the loss caused to her, the 4^th respondent/District Collector will cancell the sale conducted in favour of the 5^th respondent and with that cancellation, the property will stand restored to the petitioner.

¶51

(3) It is made clear that the petitioner shall also produce before the 4^th respondent the documents evidencing clearance of the liability due to respondents 1 and 2 and if liability is not fully discharged already, the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of the above directions. Payments as above shall be made at any rate within 6 weeks from today and on such payment, orders cancelling the sale shall be issued by the 4^th respondent/District Collector at any rate within two weeks thereafter.

¶52

WPC.No.10949/12

¶53

:4 :

¶54

(4) Once the aforesaid process is completed, amount deposited by the 5^th respondent shall be refunded without any further delay.

¶55

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶56

K. Raveendran v. Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Raveendran v. Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board

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

E.Sajeendran Vs the Secretary, Elayavoor Grama Panchayath

A.Sudheer Vs Punalur Municipality

K.v.Skaria Vs Poothrika Grama Panchayath

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs P.M.Jacob

Amrutha V.P. Vs Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

International Mechentise Trades & Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Recovery Officer