Allowed

A.G.Ravindranathan v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Kerala HC8 Aug 2014WP(C)/5744/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging the Land Revenue Commissioner's order restoring a sale, the Court found the order contemptuous for lacking application of mind in compliance with a prior judgment. The sale order was set aside, reconsideration directed, status quo maintained via possession report, and a future hearing scheduled.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Land Revenue Commissioner to hear parties and pass orders within one month; Village Officer to report on possession for status quo.

A.G.Ravindranathan Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner — Land Acquisition | 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 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/17TH SRAVANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 5744 of 2014 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

A.G.RAVINDRANATHAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN, EZHUTHACHAN, 'PRASANTHI', KRISHNA GARDENS, VELLATTU LANE, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶12

3. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶13

4. C.C.LONAPPAN, S/O.C.D.CHAKKU, CHEMMANNUR HOUSE, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 581.

¶14

*** ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED**

¶15

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11/3/14 IN IA.NO.3227/2014.

¶16

*** ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED**

¶17

6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR. IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R6 AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 8/8/14 IN WPC.

¶18

R1-R2,5,6 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.V.LONACHAN R3 BY SRI.T.V.GEORGE, SC, KFC R4 BY ADVS. SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE SRI.JAI GEORGE

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 5744 of 2014 (P)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

P1 - COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21-12-2007

¶25

P2 - COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.110091810/1700/2008 DATED 18-08-2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

P3 - COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10-11-2008

¶27

P4 - COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE NO.RR/87/99/TSR DATED 25-4-2011 ISSUED BY DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THRISSUR.

¶28

P5 - COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18-6-2011

¶29

P6 - COPY OF THE PROCEEDIGS NO.DYCKFC/261/211 2869/11 DATED 20-10-2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶30

P7 - COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(B7)11739/12 DATED 22-09-2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶31

P8 - COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS)NO.120/2013/RD DATED 02-04-2013

¶32

P9 - COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-11-2013 IN WPC.NO.10427 OF 2013

¶33

P10 - COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 10-01-2014

¶34

P11 - COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(B)7-18525/13 DATED 18-02-2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶35

P12 - COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE FALLEN TREES.

¶36

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶37

R4(A): COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11/7/11

¶38

R4(B): COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC.10427/13 DATED 2/7/13

¶39

R4(C): COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC.10427/13 DATED 6/9/13

¶40

R4(D): COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DATED 23/9/13 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶41

R4(E): COPY OF THE DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 57(1) OF THE ACT DATED 7/10/13 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶42

R4(F): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SALE DATED 5/11/13 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶43

R4(G): COPY OF THE REGISTERED CERTIFICATE OF SALE DATED 15/11/13.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J

¶48

- - - - W.P.(C).No. 5744 of 2014

¶49

- - - - Dated 8^th August, 2014

¶50

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

The petitioner challenges the Land Revenue Commissioner's order exhibited as Ext.P11. The brief facts necessary for resolving the dispute raised herein, are that the petitioner, who is an admitted defaulter of the 3^rd respondent, was proceeded against, for the recovery of the dues under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act'). Petitioner's property, which is the subject matter of the proceedings before the authorities under the Act, was brought to sale and in public auction, the 4^th respondent purchased it.

¶53

The sale proceedings were challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector which went in favour of the petitioner by Ext.P6. The Deputy Collector (RR) KFC, Thiruvananthapuram, set aside

¶54

¶55

WP(C).5744/14

¶56

the sale conducted by the Deputy Tahasildar (RR), KFC, Thrissur. The setting aside of the sale was for very many reasons as was noticed in Ext.P9 judgment. In any event, Ext.P6 order was challenged by the 4^th respondent before the Land Revenue Commissioner and Ext.P6 was set aside by Ext.P7 order. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, took the matter up before the Government in revision; unsuccessfully, as is evidenced by Ext.P8.

¶57

The petitioner in the earlier proceeding before this Court was challenging Exts.P7 and P8 orders of the Land Revenue Commissioner as confirmed by the Government. Ext.P9 is the judgment passed in a writ petition, wherein this Court found that the basic premise on which Ext.P6 was set aside, was not sustainable. Both the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Government had reversed Ext.P6 order of the Deputy Collector inter alia for the

¶58

¶59

WP(C).5744/14

¶60

reason that the application for setting aside the sale, was not filed within the time stipulated under the Act. This Court in Ext.P9, found that there were a number of grounds on which Ext.P6 order was passed, setting aside the sale. The Land Revenue Commissioner and the Government while looking into it, had not gone into the salient aspects but had only looked at the maintainability of the application and found the application to have been filed beyond the time prescribed as per the Statute, was the clear finding. This Court, after considering that issue, found that the application at any rate, was filed within time. In such circumstances, a re-consideration was directed.

¶61

The learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent would however, contend that a bare reading of Exts.P7 and P8 orders would reveal that the aspects considered by the Deputy Collector in

¶62

WP(C).5744/14

¶63

¶64

Ext.P6 were gone into by the said authorities also. However, it is too late in the present case to make such a submission since the earlier judgment in which the 4^th respondent was a party, clearly recorded that the salient aspects considered in Ext.P6 were not gone into by the authorities. In any event, Ext.P9 only ordered an open remand and the said aspects would necessarily have to be considered by the Land Revenue Commissioner on such remand having been made by Ext.P9. Hence, there would be absolutely no reason why this Court should detain itself on the issue whether the consideration made by the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Government was only with respect to the application not being in time. This Court has to confine the adjudication, in the present instance, to whether the impugned order is sustainable and is passed in consonance with Ext.P9 judgment.

¶65

It cannot be lost sight of that Ext.P9

¶66

WP(C).5744/14

¶67

¶68

directed a fresh consideration of the issue and clearly found that the application was one filed within time. The ground of the application being out of time, no more exists for the 4^th respondent. In purported compliance of Ext.P9, the Land Revenue Commissioner has now passed Ext.P11 which

¶69

in the opinion of this Court, is per se contemptuous. There is absolutely no consideration and the Land Revenue Commissioner holds that there is no “valid reason to alter the proceedings” (sic) and restores the earlier order in purported compliance of the judgment of this Court. Only in the nature of the orders being passed in the above writ petition, this Court would not venture to issue a suo motu notice to the Land Revenue Commissioner seeking explanation why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. But it has to be recorded that the order passed is not one expected of an Officer of the status of a Land Revenue Commissioner, especially when

¶70

WP(C).5744/14

¶71

¶72

discharging a quasi-judicial function, as conferred by statute.

¶73

The Land Revenue Commissioner's order, Ext.P11, is found to be totally lacking in application of mind as also lacking consideration of the relevant issues as directed in Ext.P9 judgment. Ext.P11 hence, stands set aside. The Land Revenue Commissioner is directed to hear the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent and the 4^th respondent and pass orders within one month from the date of appearance of the parties before the Land Revenue Commissioner. The proceedings before the Land Revenue Commissioner shall be restored and the petitioner, 3^rd respondent and the 4^th respondent shall appear before the Land Revenue Commissioner on 18.08.2014 at 11.00 am. The learned Government Pleader is directed to instruct the Land Revenue Commissioner to give a date of hearing to the parties even if the Land Revenue Commissioner

¶74

WP(C).5744/14

¶75

¶76

is not in Office on that particular day. On the parties appearing in the Office of the Land Revenue Commissioner on 18.08.2014, notice of hearing shall be communicated and the matter shall be concluded within two months from the date of such appearance before the Land Revenue Commissioner.

¶77

There is considerable controversy raised

¶78

with respect to the actual possession of the property as of now. While the petitioner asserts that he is in possession, the 4^th respondent with equal vehemence, contends that he has been put in possession after the confirmation of sale made as per Ext.R4(f). The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent would contend that, in the writ petition which led to Ext.P9 at the time of admission, a learned single Judge of this Court had granted a blanket stay order, subsequently modified to a conditional order by Ext.R4(b). The condition having not been complied with, stay was vacated as

¶79

WP(C).5744/14

¶80

¶81

per Ext.R4(c) upon which, sale made in favour of the 4^th respondent was confirmed as per Ext.R4(f). It is based on such confirmation of sale that the 4^th respondent asserts that he is in possession.

¶82

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶83

would counter such submission on the ground that going by the principle of dependent orders, Ext.R4 (f) would not survive, in the light of Exts.P7 and P8 being set aside by this Court. In any event, these, again are controversies which should be finally decided by the Land Revenue Commissioner. But as to the status quo to be maintained during the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Revenue Commissioner, it is directed that the Village Officer, Peramangalam, Thrissur shall visit the property and confirm as to who is in possession of the same, expeditiously and file a report before the District Collector, Thrissur based on which the status quo shall be continued, during the pendency

¶84

WP(C).5744/14

¶85

¶86

of the proceedings before the Land Revenue Commissioner. For the purpose of complying with the above directions, the Village Officer, Peramangalam, Thrissur is impleaded as additional 6^th respondent in the above writ petition. Registry shall carry out the impleadment before issuing the certified copy of this judgment.

¶87

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶88

Sd/-

¶89

K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge

¶90

Mrcs

¶91

//True Copy//

A.G.Ravindranathan v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.G.Ravindranathan v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

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

K.O.Jose @ Ouseph Vs P.D Jayaraj

Siddikul Akbar K.P. Vs P.Ramakrishnan

S. Nataraja Pillai Vs Antony Chacko

M/S.New Line Constructions Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Rajan Vs Director of Treasury

Gaia Properties and Infrastructures Vs the Commercial Tax Officer