Allowed

Beena P. George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Oct 2013WP(C)/15059/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed orders refusing to set aside a land sale. Held that sale confirmed in favour of government instead of the requisitioning authority must be set aside, provided the petitioner clears the dues.

What did the court decide?

Orders Exts.P5, P6 and P9 refusing to set aside the sale are quashed; sale set aside upon deposit of dues; possession restored and mutation carried in favour of petitioner.

Beena P. George Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/2ND KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 15059 of 2013 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

BEENA P. GEORGE, W/O. SABU & D/O. LATE GEORGE, 35 YEARS, PEEDIKAYI HOUSE, MANALITHARA P.O., MANALITHARA VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE (S) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 680003.

¶12

THAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKANCHERY P.O., 680582 THRISSUR.

¶13

DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), IDUKKI 685603.

¶14

TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE OF THE BOARD, ULLOOR P.O.,NEAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695011.

¶15

CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPCTOR CUM SECRETARY, TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD HEAD OFFICE OF THE BOARD, ULLOOR P.O. NEAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.

¶16

WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THODUPUZHA, 685584, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶17

BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P KUNJACHAN BY SRI.RENIL ANTO,SC,KTWWF BOARD

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 15059 of 2013 (F)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18-04-2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶23

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT NOTICE DATED 14-12-2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶24

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 24-1-2013 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶25

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 5-2-2013 SUBMITTED TO THE PRINCIPAL REVENUE SECRETARY

¶26

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE OFFICIAL LETTER DATED 10-04-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶27

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE GO DATED 1-3-2013 IN GO(MS) NO 76/13 REVENUE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶28

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 26-04-2013 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶29

EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 26-04-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶30

EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-05-2013 IN 12407/S2/13/RV.ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶32

/TRUE COPY/

¶33

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶34

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶35

WP(C) NO. 15059 OF 2013

¶36

Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2013

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The issue is covered by the decision in The District Collector Vs. Subaida Beevi [2010 (1) KLT 913] . The requisitioning authority in the instant case is the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board. But the sale of the property has been confirmed in favour of the government only as bought-inland. The sale which is not in favour of the requisitioning authority has therefore to be set aside. I quash Exts.P5, P6 and P9 orders refusing to set aside the sale.

¶39

The counter affidavit filed by the third respondent reflects that a sum of `7,13,0210/- is due from the petitioner with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 01.06.1999. This is in addition to the 5% collection charges and demand notice required to be collected from defaulters. The petitioner undertakes to deposit the entire amount due with interest on or before 15.12.2013. The sale of the bought-in-land would stand set aside if the liability is cleared by the petitioner

¶40

¶41

WP(C) No. 15059/2013

¶42

as above within the stipulated time.

¶43

The possession of the property shall be restored to the petitioner in the event of the amount being deposited. The necessary mutation shall also be carried in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner would be disentitled to the benefit of this judgment if the amount is not deposited within the time stipulated.

¶44

The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶45

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶46

ncd

Beena P. George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beena P. George 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India Vs Martin Kottakkal

Gopakumar Vs District Collector

Shaji Varghese Vs Authorized Officer

Tennsi Joseph Vs Nabeera Beegum

Mahendra Kumar M. Vs Ramesh

Hassan Vs the Debt Recovery Tribunal