Dismissed

Sasindra Raj K., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2022WA/1696/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal, pending since 2019, was disposed of on merits due to lack of representation. The Court dismissed the challenge against orders confirming an illegal sale of mortgaged property, finding authorities had considered all contentions and found no illegality in the conduct of the sale.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications stood closed.

Sasindra Raj K., Vs State of Kerala — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶7

WA NO. 1696 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14442/2010 & ORDER IN R.P.820/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

SASINDRA RAJ K.,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O.BABY ALIAS SARASWATHI,
CHEMMANCHERY VILLAGE,
KOYILANDY TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.
SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI
SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU
SMT.A.MEENAKSHI
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
SMT.M.R.MINI
SRI.K.C.KIRAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING, MUSEUM,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN- 695001.

¶14

2DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKODE- 673020.

¶15

W.A.1696/2019

¶16

¶17

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEMMANCHERY VILLAGE OFFICE, CHEMANCHERY, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673304.

¶18

4 THE SUB REGISTRAR, THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, CHEMMANCHERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673304.

¶19

5 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, DISTRICT REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, NEAR HPO. KOZHIKODE, PIN- 673304.

¶20

6 THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, KALLAI ROAD BRANCH, KOZHIKODE, PIN- 673011.

¶21

7 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR), KSFE OFFICE, THRISSUR, PIN - 620680.

¶22

8 ABOOBACKER, S/O.KHADER, KOODATHIL HOUSE, VENGALAM, ELATHUR, VIA, KOZHIKODE- 673303.

¶23

9 K.BABY JASEENA, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.AJITHKUMAR, RESIDING AT ALINKADAVU MARATHOOR HOUSE, KARUNGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN- 690 518.

¶24

W.A.1696/2019

¶25

¶26

10K.BABY JAMUNA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
W/O.JANARDHANAN,
OORALUNKAL VATAKARA
REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
AJITHKUMAR,S/O.NADESA PANICKER,
AGED 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ALINKADAVU MARATHOOR HOUSE,
KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI. K.P. HARISH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, KSFE LTD.-R6
SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI
SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN-R9
SMT.T.RASINI
SRI.KOSHY GEORGE
SMT. M.A. ZOHRA

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

W.A.1696/2019

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2022

¶32

S. Manikumar, CJ.

¶33

Though the matter was listed yesterday, there is no representation. Hence it is listed today.

¶34

Today also there is no representation. Writ appeal is

¶35

pending from the year 2019 onwards. Considering the grounds

¶36

of challenge, we are inclined to dispose of the writ appeal on merits.

¶37

Before the writ court, petitioner has sought for the

¶38

following reliefs:

¶39

“(A) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Exts. P7, P9 and P12 order;

¶40

(B) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 6^th respondent to afford a proper and reasonable OTS facility to the petitioner to clear the liability.”

¶41

Short facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as

¶42

under:

¶43

4.1. The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts. P9

¶44

W.A.1696/2019

¶45

¶46

and P12 orders confirming an illegal sale of the property measuring 47.250 cents for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- whereas even the alleged escalated liability was only about Rs.19,00,000/- and the property sold would fetch not less than Rs. 95,00,000/- as on the date of sale. Moreover the debtor was very much prepared to clear the liability and is prepared even now to do so. It may also be noted that the Ext.P9 order of the second respondent is coated with suspicion because after its date Ext.P6 notice of hearing was issued obviously leading to a conclusion that Ext. P9 order was issued without the knowledge of the second respondent. Despite bringing these facts into the notice, the first respondent did not interfere in the matter. Moreover the first respondent did not show even the patience to understand the case and without having a full hearing of the matter dismissed the revision petition.

¶47

4.2. It may be noted that the property now sold admeasuring 47 cents is the prime portion of the total 1.63 acres held by the petitioner's family and the petitioner is prepared to clear the liability as directed by this Court. The petitioner is prepared to remit a sum of Rupees Five Lakhs within a period of

¶48

W.A.1696/2019

¶49

¶50

one week and the balance as stipulated by this Court. At any rate, the petitioner may be given a chance to save his property because if the said 47 cents is parted, the remaining property will also become useless.

¶51

Adverting to the materials and pleadings, writ court vide judgment dated 30.11.2017 in W.P(C).No.14442 of 2010 ordered thus:

¶52

“4. The main contention in this writ petition is that the dismissal of the appeal was illegal and the District Collector erroneously dismissed the appeal stating that it was filed beyond 30 days. It is to be noted that the sale has been confirmed and the 8 th respondent was put in possession. Though the appeal was rejected by the District Collector on technical ground, the petitioner had the fullest opportunity before the revisional authority. The revisional authority in fact adverted to all the contentions of the petitioner and found that there was no illegality in the conduct of the sale. The revision was also rejected.

¶53

In the matter, additional 9^th respondent got impleaded. She claims to be the sister of the petitioner. According to the additional respondent, the property was sold for a lesser amount compared to the market value of the property. It is to be noted that the entire property that was mortgaged with the KSFE was not sold. Only a portion was sold i.e 47 cents out of 1 acre and 63 cents.

¶54

W.A.1696/2019

¶55

¶56

The property was sold for Rs.30 lakhs for realisation of Rs.19 lakhs. It cannot be said that the property was sold for a lesser amount. There were seven bidders. It is to be noted that once the matter was settled in the Adalath for Rs.13,75,000/- and the petitioner and her mother could not settle the liability. If the property would fetch a higher value, they could have sold a portion of it and could have liquidated the liability. Such being the position, there is no merit in the writ petition.

¶57

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.”

¶58

Aggrieved by the judgment in W.P(C).No.14442of 2010 dated 30.11.2017, Review Petition No.820 of 2019 was filed, which was also dismissed.

¶59

Writ appeal is filed against the judgment W.P(C).No.14442 of 2010 dated 30.11.2017 and the order in Review Petition No.820 of 2019 dated 16.1.2019.

¶60

We have gone through the material on record and find that all the authorities have considered the case of the appellant and categorically found that the sale has been conducted in accordance with law and that there is no illegality. Respondent No.8 has also been put in possession of the properties sold. We

¶61

W.A.1696/2019

¶62

¶63

find no error or infirmity in the impugned judgment, warranting interference. Writ appeal is dismissed.

¶64

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand

¶65

closed.

¶66

Sd/S. Manikumar, Chief Justice

¶67

Sd/Shaji P. Chaly, Judge

¶68

Shaji P. Chaly,

¶69

sou.

Sasindra Raj K., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasindra Raj K., 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saneesh a.S., Vs the Secretary

Speaks Properties Limited Vs State of Kerala

C.R.Neelakandan Vs State of Kerala

The Medical Council of India Vs Dr. Binu T.G

The Medical Council of India Vs Dr.Vijo George

The Branch Manager Vs Amriya Saju