Petitioner challenged revenue sale of property and sought direction to grant benefits under Amnesty Scheme. Court dismissed petition holding sale was legal and no further interference warranted, dismissing writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
SATURDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/15TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 20590 of 2013 (W)
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :
C.K.ASOKAN, S/O. C.V.KUNJUKUTTAN, PROPRIETOR OF MEENA SILICATE, CHARANKATTU HOUSE, KANICHUKULANGARA, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (INDUSTRIES), CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL REHABILITATION COMMITTEE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ALAPPUZHA.
5. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, CHERTHALA.
6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA.
7. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
8. PALM FIBRE INDIA (PVT.) LTD., ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
R1-R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T. R8 BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN
SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 20590 of 2013 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
W.P.(C).No.20590 of 2013
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenges Exts.P3 to P6 and P8 and seeks for a direction to the Land Revenue Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P11 and further for a direction to the 5th respondent to grant the petitioner benefits under the Amnesty Scheme. The petitioner also sought for a declaration that the sale of petitioner's property held on 28.05.2007 is illegal and invalid and will not bind the petitioner's right on the property.
W.P.(C).No.20590 of 2013
2
₹20,78,206/- he could avail of the scheme. However, later by Ext.P8 order dated 05.08.2008, the amnesty offer was withdrawn inter alia observing that since the property has already been sold in auction for recovery of the sales tax dues, the petitioner is not eligible for the Amnesty Scheme. The petitioner further requested for providing the benefit of amnesty and had even approached the Land Revenue Commissioner and since no action has been taken in the matter, this writ petition is filed.
W.P.(C).No.20590 of 2013
3
demand was made, the petitioner filed O.S.No.24/99 before the Sub Court, Alappuzha challenging the revenue recovery proceedings. The said suit was dismissed on 15.07.1999. Another suit as O.S.No.339/99 was filed before the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha which was again dismissed on 16.11.1999. Another extent of 2.80 Ares of land and a building was auctioned for 3,50,000/-. Again for₹ realising the balance amount, the property remaining having an extent of 1.88 Ares was attached and sold for an amount of ₹20,900/-. Still further, 1/5th right in respect of a property having an extent of 20.24 Ares was sold in auction and recovered an amount of 32,50,000/-. It is submitted that sale had been conducted by the₹ revenue authorities after complying with all the procedural formalities and therefore the revenue sale cannot be disturbed.
W.P.(C).No.20590 of 2013
4
With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
AV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the revenue sale of petitioner's property.
Whether petitioner is entitled to avail the Amnesty Scheme for sales tax arrears after property sale.
Whether sale of properties was legally conducted in accordance with prescribed procedure.
C.K. Asokan
State of Kerala
Land Revenue Commissioner, Government of Kerala
Secretary to Government (Industries)
General Manager, District Industries Centre, Alappuzha
Commercial Tax Officer, 1st Circle, Cherthala
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
