Allowed

Rafeek v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2015WP(C)/5843/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the 4th respondent to execute and register a sale deed for petitioner's auction-purchased property within one month, ruling that pending enquiry into past auctions could not indefinitely suspend the petitioner's rights.

What did the court decide?

The 4th respondent directed to execute and register the sale deed within one month of the certified copy of the judgment, barring Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, if produced within four mont

Rafeek Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2015/12TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

W.P.(C).No.5843 of 2015 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

RAFEEK.M.A., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, MOOTHEDAM HOUSE, KANDANTHARA, ALLAPRA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.NAVAS SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR SRI.P.A.SHAJI SAMAD SRI.C.J.SOLOMAN SMT.E.G.AMBILY.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 605 001.

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682 030.

¶13

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 210.

¶14

THE THAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHNADU, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 542.

¶15

W.P.(C).NO.5843 OF 2015-E

¶16

¶17

THE VILLAGE OFFICER VENGOLA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 556.

¶18

ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED:

¶19

ADDL.R7. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶20

[ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2015]

¶21

R1 TO R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No. 5843 of 2015 (E)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶26

EXHIBIT P1- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT MAHASAR DATED 27-11-2006.

¶27

EXHIBIT P2- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF LAWFUL SUCCESSION OF PURCHASE OF IMMOVABALE PROPERTY CERTIFICATE NO. A2 6283/2008 DATED 07-02-2009.

¶28

EXHIBIT P3- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE NO.A2 6283/2008 DATED 13-05-2009.

¶29

EXHIBIT P4- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE STAMP PAPERS FOR A TOTAL SUM OF RS. 19,700/- DATD 25-06-2012.

¶30

EXHIBIT P5- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 6393/09 DATED 03-07-2012.

¶31

EXHIBIT P6- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NO. A2-6283/08 DATED 19-09-2012.

¶32

EXHIBIT P7- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16-12-2013.

¶33

EXHIBIT P8- THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12-09-2012 IN WPC NO.16921/2012 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT.

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

NIL.

Vku/-

[ true copy ]

K. Vinod Chandran, J

------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.5843 of 2015-E

¶40

¶41

Dated this the 03^rd day of August, 2015

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the purchase made by the petitioner, in a public auction conducted by the Revenue Recovery authorities, has not fructified into a sale deed.

¶44

The property purchased by the petitioner is

¶45

indicated in Exhibit P1 mahazar. The petitioner having been the successful tenderer, was issued with Exhibit P2, being the declaration of lawful succession of purchase, and a sale certificate at Exhibit P3. Pursuant to Exhibit P5, by which the petitioner was directed to produce stamp papers, the petitioner is said to have produced the stamp papers, as indicated in Exhibit P4. However, the sale deed was not executed, since, as per Exhibit P6, there is an enquiry initiated into the various sales conducted, pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.

¶46

(C).No.17480 of 2008. The petitioner, however, relies on Exhibit P8 judgment in almost similar conditions.

¶47

¶48

WP(C).No.5843 of 2015

¶49

This Court has called for the Judges Papers of W.P.

¶50

(C).No.17480 of 2008 and has perused the same. Two writ petitions were considered by the Court; wherein one was filed by the purchaser in a public auction from the Revenue authorities seeking mutation and acceptance of land tax and the other was a writ petition filed by a Nationalised Bank alleging that the sale had been fraudulently conducted and that there was a prior charge in favour of the Nationalised Bank. Therein, the files were called for and having found some discrepancies, the Land Revenue Commissioner was directed to consider the matter afresh and the parties, being the purchaser and the Bank which had prior charge, were relegated to the Land Revenue Commissioner. However, there is absolutely no direction in the writ petitions with respect to any other sale conducted by the Revenue authorities.

¶51

The learned Government Pleader, however, relies on

¶52

paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, which states so:

¶53

“... the petitioner submitted stamp papers amounting to Rs.19,700/-. But on verification of the file, it is noticed that in accordance with the interim order dated 29.06.2009 in WP(C) No.17480/2008 this Hon'ble Court directed the District Collector, Ernakulam to submit the list of files in which auction of land was conducted without realising the entire due amount, for the period from 01.01.2005 to 30.06.2009. As per this order the list of such auctioned files in the above period was submitted by the District Collector, Ernakulam before this Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Court

¶54

¶55

WP(C).No.5843 of 2015

¶56

also asked the Government to conduct an enquiry and submit report within 45 days after the enquiry done as per the list. Subsequently, as per the GO(Rt) No.3345/09/RD dated 19.09.2009 the Government directed the Land Revenue Commissioner to depute an enquiry team to inspect the files involved in the above list. As per this order the Land Revenue Commissioner appointed an enquiry team for the inspection of the files and the enquiry was conducted. However no order has so far been received from the Land Revenue Commissioner”.

¶57

In any event, eventually the Court has not taken cognizance of any other matters and had merely considered the issue with respect to the subject sale, which was the bone of contention of the purchaser and the Bank which had prior charge; in those writ petitions.

¶58

It is to be noticed that the directions, if at all, were issued way back in 2010 and there can be no interdiction insofar as the sale being not materialised for reason of the matter pending before the Land Revenue Commissioner, for so long. Further, it is

¶59

to be noticed from the mahazar, Exhibit P1, that the upset price fixed was Rs.3,000/- per Are, coming to a total amount of Rs.33,000/-. The petitioner had quoted an amount of Rs.2,81,000/and had also paid the entire amounts as per the auction sale. In such circumstance, there is no reason why the execution of the sale deed be kept pending.

¶60

¶61

WP(C).No.5843 of 2015

¶62

In that view of the matter, it is directed that the

¶63

petitioner shall be issued with a sale deed in the stamp papers already produced, provided the same now conforms with the duty of conveyance as per the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. If any enhancement of duty is notified, then the additional stamp papers shall be called for. The registration also shall be made de hors Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, if the sale deed is produced within four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The 4^th respondent shall execute the sale deed and carry out the registration within one month from the date of certified copy of the judgment. “The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar's Office, Perumbavoor” is suo motu impleaded as the additional 7^th respondent, for whom the learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice.

¶64

The writ petition would stand allowed. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

¶65

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶66

vku/-

¶67

[ true copy ]

Rafeek v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafeek 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.M.Shajahan Vs the District Collector, Kottayam

Unilever India Exports Ltd. Vs the Estate Manager/Secretary

P.Raveendran Vs Ernakulam Regional Co-Op.Milk Producers Union Ltd.

M/S. Pulari Plantations Limited Vs Spices Board

M/S.Toja Tyre & Treads Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Joint Director General of Foreign

Shabana P.L. Vs Regional Passport Officer, Ernakulam