Disposed

Leelamma Rabecca James v. the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Kerala HC1 Nov 2016WP(C)/6969/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a bona fide purchaser of land, sought direction for early disposal of pending representation regarding recovery proceedings against the property. The High Court granted liberty to establish innocence while directing relevant authorities to consider representation with opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to establish innocence. Direction issued to 1st respondent to consider petitioner's representation with hearing opportunity within one month.

Leelamma Rabecca James Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr) — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/10TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6969 of 2016 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

----------

¶8

LEELAMMA RABECCA JAMES,

¶9

W/O.JAMES E.MATHEW,ILAVUNILKKUNNATHIL BATHEL BHAVAN,CHENNEERKKARA,PRAKKANAM, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.SIVA KUMAR

¶11

SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS :

¶13

-----------

¶14

1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶15

2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, TAXES,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶16

3. VINCENT,

¶17

S/O.THANKAYYAN,VINCENT VILLA, PRAKKANAM,THOTTAPPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶18

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 6969 of 2016 (U)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2249 OF 2015 OF SRO,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED O9.10.2015

¶25

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.12.2015 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER,CHENEERKARA

¶26

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 04.12.2015 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE,CHENNEERKKARA

¶27

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 03.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶28

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.02.2016 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶34

W.P.(C). No.6969 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Petitioner has purchased an extent of 3.25 Ares of land

¶37

comprised in Sy.No.290/18 of Chenneerkkara Village by virtue of Sale Deed No.2249 of 2015 of SRO, Pathanamthitta. When the petitioner approached the Village Authorities to get the property mutated in her favour, petitioner was served with Ext.P2 notice stating that, there is a liability pending over the property in respect of Government dues and recovery proceedings are pending. According to the petitioner, petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for value and therefore took every efforts to verify whether there is any charge or liability over the property prior to its purchase. The encumbrance issued to her also did not show any such liability as alleged in Ext.P2, is the contention advanced. Therefore, petitioner apprehends that, respondents will proceed against the said property and sell off the same in order to recover the alleged dues remaining against the defaulter, the 3^rd respondent.

¶38

W.P.(C). No. 6969 of 2016

¶39

¶40

Having confronted with such a situation petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 representation before the 2^nd respondent, which is pending consideration. Therefore, it is prayed that, a direction may be issued for early disposal of Ext.P5.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner.

¶42

Learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. However, learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that, Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner before the 2^nd respondent is not maintainable under law. It is also true, when a recovery action is initiated by the respective recovery authorities the purchaser of property against whom the proceedings are pending is entitled to be heard by the said recovery authority as contemplated under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It is also stated that the property in question has statutory charge since amounts are due on account of sales tax.

¶43

Taking note of the respective submissions made

¶44

W.P.(C). No. 6969 of 2016

¶45

¶46

across the Bar, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner can be given liberty to establish her innocence put forth. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that already an objection is submitted before the 1^st respondent, which is pending consideration. The said representation is placed before me for reference. Therefore, I am satisfied that a direction can be issued to the 1^st respondent to take on board the representation submitted by the petitioner and consider

¶47

the same in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing and take a decision accordingly within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, it will be open for the petitioner to provide details of any other properties held by the defaulter and the recovery authorities will be at liberty to proceed with the recovery action against the said properties also.

¶48

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶50

smv 01.11.2016

Leelamma Rabecca James v. the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leelamma Rabecca James v. the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajani Vs the District Collector, Thrissur

Parakottil Kerosone Agencies Vs Secy. to Govt.

Commonwealth Trust (India) Ltd. Vs a. Harimohan

Xavier.T.J Vs State of Kerala

T.S. Sreekumar Vs Union of India

Jayakumar.P.S Vs Chief Information Officer