Dismissed

K.M.Pareeth v. Sub Collector, Pala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2016WP(C)/4854/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting a revision filed by a defaulter regarding the Government's purchase of auctioned property under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the property sale followed statutory procedure and the petitioner's absence did not violate natural justice. No legal grounds existed for interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as there are no legal grounds to interfere with the order rejecting the revision.

K.M.Pareeth Vs Sub Collector, Pala — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/12TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4854 of 2015 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.M.PAREETH, MANACKAL HOUSE, NADAKKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. SUB COLLECTOR, PALA - 686 575.

¶11

2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.M.JASMIN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

msv/

¶15

WP(C).No. 4854 of 2015 (F)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1 -	COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18-02-2011
EXT.P2 -	COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31-03-2014
EXT.P3 -	COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31-03-2014
EXT.P4 -	COPY OF HEARING NOTICE SEND BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30-10-2014
EXT.P5 -	COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12-11-2014
EXT.P6 -	COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22-11-2014

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

msv/

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.4854 of 2015

¶25

Dated this the 3^rd day of November 2016

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner by which the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 83(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the RR Act') has been rejected. The petitioner, admittedly, is a defaulter to the Sales Tax Department. The property, having an extent of 4.86 Ares in Sy.No.119/4-3 in Block No.67 of Erattupetta village was attached and proclaimed for sale. Since there were no bidders for purchasing the property, the property was purchased by the Government invoking Section 50 of the RR Act. After the sale had been confirmed, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner under Section 83(1) of the Act. Though the matter was posted twice, that is on 29/10/2014 and 19/11/2014, the petitioner could not appear on account of various reasons which he had informed the Land Revenue Commissioner's office, but without giving him an opportunity for hearing, the revision was dismissed.

¶28

W.P.C.No.4854/2015

¶29

¶30

Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent inter alia stating that revenue recovery action has been initiated for realisation of sales tax arrears of Rs.65,04,812/- plus interest under the RR Act for the period 1996-1997 to 2002-2003.

¶31

As far as this property was concerned, the auction was posted on 10/05/2010 and 25/05/2010. There were no bidders on 25/05/2010 and therefore the land was bid in favour of Government for Re.1/- as per Section 50 of the Act. It is stated that the value of the property was fixed at Rs.8,01,900/- and the building was valued at Rs.33,700/-. Petitioner preferred an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 25/05/2010 objecting to the sale. Sale was confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 18/02/2011, against which the revision was filed.

¶32

Perusal of the records would clearly indicate that the Land Revenue Commissioner had considered the matter in detail, though the petitioner was not available for a hearing. Petitioner cannot contend that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. Though he was given a fair opportunity for hearing, he neither appeared before the Land Revenue Commissioner nor

¶33

W.P.C.No.4854/2015

¶34

¶35

authorised another person to appear on his behalf and contest the matter. Even otherwise, going by the proceedings at Ext.P6, it is evident that the authorities had conducted the auction in accordance with the procedure prescribed. When the statute clearly permits the Government to purchase the land, if there are no bidders and the auction is adjourned to another date, nothing prevents the Officer concerned to conduct sale of property in favour of the Government. In so far as the sale had been conducted after complying with all procedural requirements and the petitioner does not have a different case, I do not think that rejection of the revision amounts to any substantial prejudice to the petitioner warranting interference by this Court.

¶36

Hence, there being no legal grounds to interfere with Ext.P6 order, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶37

(sd/-)

¶38

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶39

jsr

K.M.Pareeth v. Sub Collector, Pala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Pareeth v. Sub Collector, Pala

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/S. Gehana Gold Palace (P) Ltd. Vs the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

M/S. Gehana Gold Palace (P) Ltd. Vs the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

M/S. Muthoot Mercantile Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Asokan Vs Commercial Tax Officer

G.Venkitesh Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Shah Enterprises Vs Income Tax Officer