Dismissed

M.P.Augustine v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2016WA/1903/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed this appeal challenging the Single Judge's order that rejected a writ petition against revenue recovery proceedings. The Court held that failure to give notice before quantifying the recovery amount did not justify setting aside proceedings initiated based on a requisition from the Excise Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ appeal and affirmation of the lower court's dismissal of the writ petition.

M.P.Augustine Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/13TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WA.No. 1903 of 2013 () IN WP(C).20299/2012

¶6

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

M.P.AUGUSTINE

¶9

NOW RESIDING AT INFRA WHITE HALL(C4) PANAMPILLY NAGAR K.C. ABRAHAM ROAD, COCHIN-36.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH

¶11

SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND TAXES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM- 682030.

¶16

4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KOCHI-682001.

¶17

R1-R4 BY ADV. SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶20

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

¶21

W.A. No. 1903 of 2013

¶22

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

¶23

Dated this, the 2^nd day of February, 2016

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Shaffique, J.

¶26

This appeal has been filed by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 20299/12 challenging judgment dated 31/10/2013. In the writ petition, petitioner challenged Exts.P3, P8 and P9. Ext.P3 is an order passed by the District Collector based on requisition dated 28/2/2005 of the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Excise Division Office, Ernakulam for recovering compensation of 10,00,000/from the petitioner. Ext.P8 is an order dated 14/8/2012 passed by the Government, by which directions had been issued to recover an amount of 40,00,000/- as compensation amount paid to the victims or legal heirs of the liquor tragedy in Vypin. Ext.P9 is the notice issued under Section 36 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for attaching 1/5^th undivided share of property having an extent of 40.47 Ares in Sy.No.628 of Njarakkal Village for recovery of an amount of `17,00,000/- with 5% collection

¶27

W.A. No.1903/13

¶28

-:2:-

¶29

charges and other expenditure. According to the petitioner, there was no basis for initiating revenue recovery proceedings and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

¶30

Learned Single Judge having considered the matter dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there is no challenge to the amount quantified for recovery and Ext.P8 order cannot be challenged as the directions had been issued to recover the amount based on the judgment of this Court.

¶31

Impugning the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount had been quantified without notice to the petitioner. It is stated that the appellant ought to have been heard before passing any order quantifying the liability due from the petitioner. Since such an action had not been taken, it is not open for the revenue authorities to recover any amount from the petitioner.

¶32

A statement has been filed by the 3^rd respondent inter alia stating that recovery has been effected in two parts. As first part, three requisitions were sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise to recover `10,00,000/- each from three contractors viz., Sri.M.P.Augustine, Sri.K.K.Vijayan and Sri.M.K.Thampan. As a

¶33

W.A. No.1903/13

¶34

-:3:-

¶35

second part of the recovery, further three requisitions were received from the Excise Department to recover 7,00,000/- each from the aforesaid persons. Amount had been recovered from the contractor Sri.M.K.Thampan. The other contractors did not remit any amount till date. In regard to another contractor Mr.Chandrasenan, his legal heirs had remitted the entire amount of 17,00,000/-. It is further submitted that an amount of 28,75,000 has been recovered from the properties of Sri.K.K.Vijayan by attachment and sale and the said amount is kept under revenue deposit as he is having arrears of Toddy Welfare Fund and Abkari Kisth amounting to 13,71,990/-. As far as the petitioner is concerned, no amount has been paid so far.

¶36

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, it is clear that the requisition had been made by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, which is not under challenge in this proceedings. In so far as the revenue authorities are concerned, they are only recovering the amount as requisitioned by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. When steps are taken to recover the amount based on a requisition, it may not be possible for the revenue authorities to find out the veracity of the claim made by

¶37

W.A. No.1903/13

¶38

the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. Under such circumstances, the contention that no notice was issued to the petitioner while computing the amount cannot be the basis for setting aside the revenue recovery proceedings. That apart, the amounts were quantified as per directions issued by this Court in WA No.1184/1993. That apart, requisition has been made with reference to the amounts paid as compensation to the victims of Vypin Liquor Tragedy.

¶39

Under such circumstances, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶43

Rp03/02/2016

¶44

//True Copy//

¶45

PS to Judge

M.P.Augustine v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Augustine 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

Jayakumar.N Vs Ajeer

Asoka Kumar V.C Vs Dr.W.R.Reddy

Judish Vs St.Judes Shrine

K.C.Devassia Vs State of Kerala

T.Ponnamma Vs State of Kerala

G.K.Saila Kumari Vs State of Kerala