Disposed

A.C.Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2019WP(C)/3097/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that the auction purchaser faced prejudice due to undisclosed liabilities on the property sold by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Court did not adjudicate the merits directly but permitted the petitioner to file an application with the Recovery Officer for confirmation of sale or settlement of liabilities.

What did the court decide?

Permission issued to file an appropriate application before the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, to seek confirmation of sale or settlement of liabilities.

A.C.Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 26TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3097 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

A.C.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 75 YEARS S/O.K.K.KUNHIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT LEELA BHAVAN, EDAKKAD AMSOM, CHALA 12 KANDY DESOM, P.O.THOTTADA, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 007.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.R.SURENDRAN KUM.S.MAYUKHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 002.

¶12

3 THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THALASSERY AT KANNUR TALUK OFFICE, KANNUR 670 002.

¶13

4 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANNUR 670 002.

¶14

5 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 3RD CIRCLE, KANNUR 670 002.

¶15

6 THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KANNUR 670 002.

¶16

7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAKKAD VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT, P.O., EDAKKAD 670 663.

¶17

WP(C).No. 3097 of 2019

¶18

¶19

8 THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM 682 036.

¶20

9 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR 670002.

¶21

10 SRI. M.V.UNNIKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, ROSNA MARKETING, 1ST FLOOR, LAND MARK COMPLEX, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR 670 002.

¶22

SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH-SC, SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No. 3097 of 2019

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner is stated to be an auction purchaser of certain properties put to auction by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Kerala, pursuant to a sale notification issued by him, consequent to an award in O.A.No.267/2006 obtained by the respondent - bank. The travails of the petitioner is clear from the pleadings on record because even though he has paid the entire sale consideration, he has not been able to obtain delivery of the property since it now transpires that there are several liabilities, including Sale Tax arrears and such other, charged on this property, for which revenue recovery action is pending. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that this Court adjudicate this issue and declare that, since the mortgage of the bank is prior to these liabilities, the sale is liable to be confirmed and that the property be transferred in registry to his name.

¶28

I have heard Sri.R.Surendran, the learned counsel for the petitioner quite in detail today. I am certainly persuaded to the view that the petitioner has been put to unnecessary prejudice on account of the conduct of the sale without verifying whether there are other liabilities. I must, however, say that this is only a prima facie opinion because I am not sure whether the sale

¶29

¶30

WP(C).No. 3097 of 2019

¶31

notification contained disclosure regarding the liabilities, since it is not available on record; or as to whether the petitioner purchased the property with knowledge of such liabilities.

¶32

In any event of the matter, these aspects are ones that certainly have to gain the attention of the Recovery Officer immediately, since it is unfair that auction purchasers, who come into the fray solely on account of notifications issued by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, must then suffer prejudice.

¶33

I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner must approach the Recovery Officer with a proper application, either to have the sale set aside or for settlement of the liabilities by the bank in such manner as may be appropriate under law and that such an application must be considered by the Recovery Officer without any delay.

¶34

In the above perspective, I order this writ petition and permit the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Kerala within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, the said Authority will consider the same and pass orders thereon, not later than one month

¶35

WP(C).No. 3097 of 2019

¶36

¶37

thereafter.

¶38

This writ petition is thus ordered and I leave full liberty to

¶39

the petitioner to approach this Court again, if it becomes so

¶40

warranted, after approaching the Recovery Officer as above.

¶41

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

stu

¶44

WP(C).No. 3097 of 2019

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY DATED 28.1 NO.8 IN FA	OF ORDER OF CONFIRMATION OF SALE 2.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY RESPONDENT	OF THE LETTER DATED 5.12.2010 THE PETITIONER TO THE 8TH
EXHIBIT P3	CERTIFIED ISSUED BY IN O.A. 26 KADACHIRA.	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SALE THE RESPONDENT NO.8 IN DRC NO. 2609 7 OF 2006 AND OBTAINED FROM SRO
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY BY THE 8TH PROPERTY.	OF THE ORDER DATED 30.5.2011 ISSUED RESPONDENT DIRECTING DELIVERY OF
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY RESPONDENT	OF THE LETTER DATED 13.6.2011 THE PETITIONER TO THE 8TH BY REGISTERED POST.
EXHIBIT P6	NOTICE DAT RESPONDENT	ED 3.7.2012 ISSUED BY THE 8TH AND RECEIVED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY RESPONDENT	OF THE LETTER DATED 14.11.2012 THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY RESPONDENT DATED 15.9	OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 8TH AND COMMUNICATED THROUGH NOTICE .2014.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY 1.11.2014 FOURTH RES	OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PONDENT
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY BY THE 5TH	OF THE LETTER DATED 2.1.2015 ISSUED RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY	OF THE REQUISITION DATED NIL, THE EIGHTH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY BY THE 3RD	OF THE REPLY DATED 2.2.2015 ISSUED RESPONDENT.

¶49

WP(C).No. 3097 of 2019

¶50

¶51

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.3.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶52

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12.6.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE LAWYER OF THE 10TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶53

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

P.A TO JUDGE.

A.C.Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.C.Prabhakaran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaju Vs the Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank

The Federal Bank Limited Vs Sub Registrar

Leela.K Vs Babu

Aneesha Abdul Salim, Vs Divisional Forest Officer

K.P.Peter, Vs Abhilash

C.Madhavan Vs the Authorized Officer/Assistant General Manager