IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 35195 of 2010(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BENJAMIN JACOB, S/O.N.D. JACOB, NAGARUKUNNEL, POOVATHOLE, KARIKKATTOR, MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BHADRATHA, P.B.NO.510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR- 680 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, PONKUNNAM BRANCH, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM-686 506 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 695 001. 4. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, M.C. ROAD, NEAR YMCA, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, 686 001. 5. DR.C.V. JAMES, S/O.VARGHESE, MUNDAMPALLY HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, 686 507. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD. R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, KFC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35195 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement with the 5th respondent for purchase of certain immovable properties, upon which the 5th respondent had created a charge of mortgage in favour of respondents 1 and 2, for securing payment of amounts under a chitty transaction, which the 5th respondent had with respondents 1 & 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent had attached the very same property covered under Ext.P1 agreement for realisation of dues under a loan transaction, which was availed by the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, he along with 5th respondent is ready to clear the entire liability due towards respondents 1 and 2 by sale of the property and balance if any left out from the sale consideration will be remitted to the 3rd respondent. On that premise the petitioner is seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to release the attachment. In this respect the petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 representation before the 3rd respondent which was not acceded to. Hence the petitioner is approaching this court. 2. In the statement filed on behalf of respondents 3 and W.P.(C).35195/10 -2- 4 it is contended that, the petitioner has no legal rights to claim release of the attachment, which is validly effected under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It is contended that the price (consideration) shown in Ext.P1 agreement is too low. Even the fair value fixed by the Government with respect to the land in question is Rs.1,00,000/- per Are. It is further pointed out that a valuation certificate furnished by the Tahsildar on the basis of interim direction issued by this court will indicate that the property is worth for Rs.80,000/- per Are. But such a valuation is much lesser than the fair value fixed by the Government as well as the value conceded by the 5th respondent. It is mentioned that huge amount to the tune of Rs.224.40 lakhs was availed as loan by the 5th respondent and the arrears now remaining unpaid has grown to the alarming extent of Rs.457.58 lakhs, as on 1.12.2010. Under such circumstances, respondents 3 and 4 are not favouring in releasing the attachment effected with respect to the property covered under Ext.P1, in order to facilitate sale of the said property. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount due to respondents 3 and 4 are secured through mortgage of six other items of properties having sufficient valuation. Therefore the stand taken by respondents 3 and 4 in this regard is unsustainable, is the contention. However, it is W.P.(C).35195/10 -3- submitted that Ext.P6 representation submitted by the petitioner before the Managing Director of the 3rd respondent Corporation has not been considered and therefore the petitioner seeks a limited prayer for issuing a direction to consider the said representation and to take appropriate decision. I am of the view that the writ petition can be closed directing to dispose of Ext.P6. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P6 request and to take an appropriate decision thereon, if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb