Dismissed

Augustine v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

Kerala HC15 Jul 2016WP(C)/7548/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging land sale notices issued by revenue authorities regarding property belonging to a defaulting company was dismissed. The bench held that even if petitioners hold a decree, they cannot stall statutory recovery proceedings and must file objections within the revenue system.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; parties directed to seek further relief against the other party to the agreement from appropriate authorities.

Augustine Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2016/24TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 7548 of 2015 (P)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

AUGUSTINE, S/O.MANUEL, AGED 67 YEARS, MALIAKAL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY VILLAGE, PERUMPADAPPU DESOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682 006.

¶8

¶9

2. P.S. DEVARAJA PANICKER, S/O.SUKUMARA PANICKER, AGED 51 YEARS, THEJUS, KUMARPURAM VILLAGE AND P.O., KUTTAMKAITHA DESOM, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 548.

¶10

BY ADVS.DR.V.N.SANKARJEE,

¶11

SRI.S.SIDHARDHAN, SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN, SRI.PRATHAP. S.R.K., SMT.M.SUSEELA.

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶14

2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM -682 011.

¶15

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-682 020.

¶16

4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (WC), CLASS TOWER, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.

¶17

WP(C).No. 7548 of 2015 (P)

¶18

5. STAR FOUNDATIONS AND STRUCTURES PVT. LTD., STAR HOMS HOTELS, CHERUPARAMPATH ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P O, KOCHI-682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI AJAY VARGHESE GEORGE, S/O. K.V. GORGE, AGED 51, DOOR NO.33/190 (1/84), KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, VILLA NO 4, STAR ENCLAVE, CHEMBOKKADAVU ROAD, EDAPPALLY-682 024, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, VATTEKUNNAM KARA, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶19

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

rs.

¶22

WP(C).No. 7548 of 2015 (P)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶25

P1:TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DTD 08/02/2012.

¶26

P2:TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DTD 29/01/2014 IN OS NO. 158/2014 OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶27

P3:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 29/01/2014 IN OS NO. 158/2014 OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶28

P4:TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 30/01/2015.

¶29

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 11 NOTICE DTD 05/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 16 NOTICE DTD 11/03/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶31

P7:TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 03/05/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶32

P7(A):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 03/05/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶33

P7(B):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 27/06/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶34

P7(C):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 03/07/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶35

P7(D):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 03/07/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶36

P7(E):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 03/07/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶37

P7(F):- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 03/07/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶38

P7(G):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 03/07/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶39

P7(H):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 03/08/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶40

....2/-

¶41

WP(C).No. 7548 of 2015 (P)

¶42

P7(I):- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 03/08/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶43

P7(J):- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 03/08/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶44

P7(K):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 03/08/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶45

P7(L):- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 03/08/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶46

P7(M):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 03/08/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶47

P7(N):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 03/08/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶48

P7(O):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 03/08/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶49

P7(P):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 21/01/2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶50

P7(Q):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 08/04/2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶51

P7(R):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 08/04/2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶52

P7(S):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 08/04/2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶53

P7(T):- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 08/04/2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶54

P7(U):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 20/05/2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶55

P7(V):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 21/05/2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶56

P7(W):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 22/08/2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶57

...3/-

¶58

WP(C).No. 7548 of 2015 (P)

¶59

P7(X):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 26/05/2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶60

P7(Y):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 28/05/2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶61

P7(Z):- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 28/05/2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶62

P7(ZZ):-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DTD 17/11/2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶63

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶68

------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.7548 of 2015

¶69

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2016

¶70

J U D G M E N T

¶71

The petitioners challenge Ext.P5, P6 and P7 by which steps had been taken by the revenue authorities for sale of property belonging to one Ajay Varghese. According to the petitioner, he had filed a suit as O.S.No.158/2014 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam and obtained specific performance of an agreement dated 08.02.2012. The petitioners submit that pursuant to the agreement, they had already parted with substantial amount and if steps are taken against the property in question pursuant to Exts.P5, P6 and P7, the petitioners will be put to serious hardship.

¶72

It is not in dispute that the liability for which Exts.P5, P6 and P7 had been issued is due from the said defaulter. If the petitioners have any priority with reference to the aforesaid claim, they have to approach the revenue authorities and file appropriate objections. They cannot stall the proceedings by contending that they had obtained a decree with reference to the property. The right of the Government to proceed against the property under the Revenue Recovery Act depends upon the statutory provisions by which charge, if any, created against the property in question.

¶73

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent inter alia stating that the total liability due from the

¶74

W.P.(C) No.7548 of 2015

¶75

¶76

defaulter is 1,97,16,244/-. It is stated that notices had been issued₹ under Section 36 and 49 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act to attach and sell certain item of property. The defaulter had challenged the said notices before this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.7248/2015 which was allowed quashing the sale notices observing that there is no provision to proceed against the properties of the Director for realising the dues of the company. Even otherwise, it is evident that the decree had been obtained only on 29.11.2014 and the steps have been taken for recovering the amount in terms of the notices much prior to the said date.

¶77

In the said circumstances, I don't think that the petitioners have a legal grievance which could be adjudicated before this Court. Hence, I don't find any merit in the contention urged to stall the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by virtue of Exts.P5, P6 and P7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. The dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioners seeking appropriate remedy against the other party to the agreement.

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶80

Augustine v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Augustine v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

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

Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs Union of India

Jose Kumar T Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

M/S. Travancore Rubbers Ltd. Vs the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

Bushara Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Aboobacker Vs the Thahsildar, Koyilandy

Biju S. Vs the Manager, the Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.