Partly allowed

Mohanan A.K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Feb 2024WP(C)/509/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging auction sale of society property for recovery of employee dues. Court set aside sale subject to refund of purchase money with interest, as underlying dues were settled and property remains in possession.

What did the court decide?

Sale set aside; purchaser to be repaid Rs.15,10,000 with 6% interest by Third Respondent within one month. Order quashed. Confirmation on default.

Mohanan A.K. Vs State of Kerala — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 23RD MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 509 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 MOHANAN A.K.,AGED 63 YEARS S/O.KANDAKUTTY,AARI VEEDU,KUNDALIYOOR.P.O, TRISSUR. 2 ADDL.P2.PRASANNA,AGED 55 YEARS W/O. LATE MOHANAN, AARI VEEDU, KUNDALIYOOR P.O., TRISSUR. 3 ADDL.P3. PRANAVU,AGED 32 YEARS S/O. LATE MOHANAN, AARI VEEDU, KUNDALIYOOR P.O., TRISSUR. 4 ADDL.P4. PRAVEEN,AGED 28 YEARS S/O.LATE MOHANAN, AARI VEEDU, KUNDALIYOOR P.O., TRISSUR. (ADDL. P2 TO P4 IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED P 1 AS PER ORDER DATED 01-09-2021 IN IA 1/2021 BY ADVS. K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.MIZVER SRI.M.J.KIRANKUMAR

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶10

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR-680001. 3 SUB COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,AYYANTHOLE, TRISSUR-680001. 4 TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,TRISSUR-680502.

¶11

W.P.(C)No.509/2020 2

¶12

5 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY(GENERAL),TRISSUR-680001. TRISSUR-680001. 6 ENGANDIYOOR HARIJAN SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, P.O.KUNDALIYOOR,CHAVAKKAD, TRISSUR,REPRESNETED BY ADMINISTRATOR,OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(GENERAL)OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MUTHUVATTOOR,CHAVAKKAD-680506.

¶13

7 SUNI, AGED 48 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHNAN,MULAIKKAL HOUSE,ENGANDIYOOR,KUNDALIYOOR,TRISSUR-680616. 8 K.V.VIJAYA, D/O VELAYUDHAN,KARIPPAYI HOUSE, PUTHAN PEDIKA.P.O, (VIA),ANTHIKKAD,TRISSUR-680331. 9 P.P.ANARKKALI, W/O.VIJAYAN,CHIRAYATH HOUSE, VADANAPALLY.P.O,TRISSUR-680303. 10 PRANAVU AGED 32 YEARS SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED BY ADVS. SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR S.K.BALACHANDRAN SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.MIZVER SRI.M.J.KIRANKUMAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI. S K BALACHANDRAN (FOR R6), SRI. K A SALIL NARAYANAN (FOR R7), SRI. DHEERAJ A S (GP)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C)No.509/2020

JUDGMENT

This writ petition was filed by one Mohanan A.K., being aggrieved by the fact that certain property belonging to the 6^th respondent (Engandiyoor Harijan Service Co-operative Society) has been sold in revenue recovery proceedings to recover amounts payable towards salary of respondents 8 and 9. This Court, by Ext.P3 judgment in W.P. (C)No.17080/2014 filed by respondents 8 and 9, had directed initiation of proceedings for recovery of the amounts found due to respondents 8 and 9 under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is accordingly that the property of the 6^th respondent was sold. It was the case of the petitioner that all the dues of respondents 8 and 9 had been settled and it was not necessary for the revenue recovery authorities to have sold the property of the 6^th respondent in auction. Pending consideration of the writ petition, the writ petitioner died and his legal heirs have been impleaded as additional petitioners 2, 3 and 4.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for additional petitioners would submit that the property of the 6^th respondent could not have been sold as the entire amounts payable to respondents 8 and 9 had already been paid. It is submitted that late Mohanan A.K., was a member of the 6^th respondent Society which was defunct and could therefore maintain the writ petition before this Court challenging the

¶22

W.P.(C)No.509/2020

¶23

¶24

sale of the property of the 6^th respondent Society in favour of the 7^th respondent. It is submitted that the wife of late Mohanan, who was impleaded as the additional 2^nd petitioner is also a member of the Society and is therefore entitled to continue with the writ petition. It is submitted that this Court in Vijayakumar v. District Collector ; 2013 (2) KLT 458 has held that where the liability in respect of which the revenue recovery proceedings had been settled, the revenue recovery proceedings have to be withdrawn and any sale conducted under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act of the property belonging to the defaulter will have to be set aside.

¶25

The learned Government Pleader would submit that the Society which was defunct has been revived and an administrative committee is now in office. Adv. S.K.Balachandran appears for the 6^th respondent Society representing the Convenor of the Administrative Committee. It is submitted that the property in question is still in the possession of the Society and has not been handed over to the 7^th respondent who is the auction purchaser.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent would submit that, after the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated, neither the Society nor any person claiming to be interested in the affairs of the Society had come forward to challenge the proceedings and it was only when the property of the 6^th respondent Society was sold that

¶27

W.P.(C)No.509/2020

¶28

¶29

objections were raised regarding the sale of the property. It is submitted that no objection was raised within the time and the 7^th respondent had remitted a sum of Rs.15,10,000/- towards the purchase price on 4.6.2018. It is submitted that, however, without standing on any technicality, the 7^th respondent would be satisfied if the amount of Rs.15,10,000/- is returned to the 7^th respondent together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent, I am clear in my mind that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference with the sale proceedings. It is atleast doubtful as to whether the original writ petitioner (now represented by additional petitioners 2, 3and 4) even had locus standi to challenge the sale in respect of the property of the 6^th respondent on account of the fact that he was a member of the 6^th respondent. However, this court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the liability in respect of which the property was sold has been settled and also the fact that the 6^th respondent is a Harijan Service Co-operative Society which was defunct. This Court also cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the property which was sold to the 7^th respondent continues to be in the possession of the 6^th respondent Society and presently an administrative committee is managing the

¶31

W.P.(C)No.509/2020

¶32

¶33

affairs of the 6^th respondent Society. Therefore, considering the extremely fair stand taken by the learned counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent, I am of the opinion that the sale in favour of the 7^th respondent can be set aside subject to the condition that the amount of Rs.15,10,000/- remitted by the 7^th respondent before the 3^rd respondent shall be returned to him by the 3^rd respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Since the setting aside of the sale in favour of the 7^th respondent is to the benefit of the 6^th respondent Society, I further direct that the 6^th respondent Society shall pay interest equivalent to 6% per annum from the date on which the 7^th respondent deposited the money before the 3^rd respondent till the amount is paid to the 7^th respondent by the 3^rd respondent. Subject to the compliance of the above said directions, Ext.P12 will stand quashed. If the amounts are not paid as directed above and within the time as specified above, the sale as per Ext.P12 will stand confirmed. The interest will be payable as above from 4.6.2018 till the date on which the amount is returned to the 7^th respondent by the 3^rd respondent. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

acd

W.P.(C)No.509/2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 509/2020

¶41

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶42

Exhibit R6(a) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MEMBERSHIP BOOK OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT Exhibit R6(b) A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 22/12/2023

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

EXHIBIT	P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY
EXHIBIT	P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(c)NO.17080/14 DATED 29.8.2016 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT	P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16-6-18 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.G7/18740/18 DATED 16.6.18.
EXHIBIT	P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 21.6.18 BEARING NO.CKD 986/18 SUBMITTED BY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(GENERAL)CHAVAKKAD TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 6-7-18
EXHIBIT	P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 6.7.18
EXHIBIT	P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.8.18 BEARING NO.H.M.5012/2018.
EXHIBIT	P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.19330/2018 DATED 9.10.2018 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
EXHIBIT	P-10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.IR(1)3438/10 DATED 17-10-2018
EXHIBIT	P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DATED 26.2.2019 FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ALL

W.P.(C)No.509/2020

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

EXHIBIT P12	PHOTOCOPY OF THE 10515/18 DATED 2 RESPONDENT.	ORDER BEARING NO.B1- 1.12.2019 ISSUED BY 3RD
EXHIBIT P13	PHOTOCOPY OF THE 1630/2016 DATED	LETTER BEARING NO.R5- 25/11/2019
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R7A	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED BY THE ENGANDIYOOR.	SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY AS VILLAGE OFFICER,
EXHIBIT R7B	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE DEPUTY TA	AUCTION MAHAZAR PREPARED HSILDAR.
EXHIBIT R7C	TRUE COPY OF THE SEC.49() OF THE WITH THE PAPER P	SALE NOTICE UNDER REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ALONG UBLICATIONS.
EXHIBIT R7D	TRUE COPY OF THE 'SAMRAKSHANA SAM	NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE ITI".

Mohanan A.K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan A.K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala State Housing Board Vs Kerala State Fishermen Debt Relief Commission

Varadarajan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Koliyacode Consumer Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Jose Vs State of Kerala

I.G.Paul Vs Indian Bank

Bindu Anish, Vs the Authorised Officer