Allowed

Mathew Kuriachan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Aug 2014WP(C)/2590/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a defaulter to a notified institution, sought the return of land purchased by the Government under Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act to settle dues. The Court held that such proceedings must be in the institution's name and set aside the sale, ordering possession restored within six months.

What did the court decide?

Bought-in-land proceedings set aside; possession of property to be resumed within six months.

Mathew Kuriachan Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2014/31ST SRAVANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 2590 of 2013 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MATHEW KURIACHAN, KODIKULAM, PRESIDENT, GRAMODHARANA NEHRU YOUVAK CLUB, REG.NO.125/75, PADUVA.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVOCATES SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶13

4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY), KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶14

5. KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - PIN-695 001.

¶15

6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AKALAKKUNNAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 579.

¶16

R1 TO R4 & R6 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.V.LONACHAN R5 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.TOM K.THOMAS SRI.R.S.HARI KUMAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Kss

¶19

WPC.NO.2590/2013 (W)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXHIBIT -P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED DATED 27-12-1979.

¶23

EXHIBIT -P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.K.B.15349/88/R.2 DATED 19-042005 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT -P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS.1,03.256/- DATED 20-04-2005.

¶25

EXHIBIT -P4 A TRUE COPY OF HE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21-04-2005.

¶26

EXHIBIT -P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR REVENUE DATED 22-032012.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

¶32

W.P.(C).No.2590 of 2013-W

¶33

-------------------------------------Dated this, the 22^nd day of August, 2014

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner is an admitted defaulter of the 5^th respondent, being an institution notified under Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 [for brevity “RR Act”], which requisitioned for recovery of the dues from the petitioner. The 4^th respondent initiated recovery proceedings under Section 50 of the RR Act, purchased the land for an amount of Re.1/- in the bought-in-land proceedings, as permitted thereunder. Subsequently, the petitioner settled the entire arrears in One Time Settlement [OTS] with the 5^th respondent, as is evident from Exhibit P3. The petitioner now seeks for return of the land purchased by the Government under Section 50 of the RR Act.

¶36

A Division Bench of this Court in District Collector v. Subaida Beevi [2010 (1) KLT 913] held that though bought-in-land proceedings could be taken even when recovery is proceeded on the requisition of an institution notified under Section 71 of the RR Act, such proceedings have to be taken by purchasing the land in

¶37

WP(C).No.2590 of 2013 - 2 -

¶38

the name of the institution which made the requisition and not in the

¶39

name of the Government.

¶40

In the present case, for the recovery initiated on the requisition of the 5^th respondent, the revenue recovery authorities had purchased the land in the name of the Government and not in the name of the institution. In such circumstances, the bought-in-land proceedings initiated against the property of the petitioner, title of which is evidenced by Exhibit P1 gift deed, would stand set aside. If the petitioner was dispossessed of the property, then the possession shall be resumed within a period of six months from today.

¶41

Writ petition allowed. No costs.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶44

vku/-

¶45

( true copy )

Mathew Kuriachan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew Kuriachan 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

Smt. Sunitha E.P Vs Binny Varghese

Patumma Vs State Bank of India

B.Kumari Vs Kerala State Women'S Development Corporation

Sunil Kumar E.K Vs Dr.v.M.Gopala Menon

C.Ravunni Nair and Others Vs Kerala State Finance Enterprises

Bindhu Shijoy Vs State of Kerala