IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15579 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GINESH V.G., S/O.JEEVALAN, VELLARAMPARAKKAL, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.PAULOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR, TODDY WORKER'S WELFARE FUND, THODUPUZHA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO,SC,KTWWF BOARD (TODDY WO FOR R1 BY SRI.M.A.ASIF, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.15579 OF 2008 EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R D O MUVATTUPUZHA UNDER REFERENCE A2-4503/04 DATED 25.8.2004 EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B2-6089/00 DATED 22.4.2008 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DETAILED LETTER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 25.4.2008. EXT.P4 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P5 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMTN AND COVERING LETTER RECEIVED FROM WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, THODUPUZHA DATED 5.2.2011. EXT.P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF 12 RECEIPTS. EXT.P7 A PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF COLLECTION CHARGES OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF CALCULATION STATEMENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 15579 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the licencee of several toddy shops in Piravom Village for various periods ending with 1998-99. To recover arrears of contribution payable by the petitioner to the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund, proceedings were initiated against him under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. An item of immovable property belonging to him, 35 cents in extent, situated in Survey Nos.841/10, 841/11A and 841/11B of Onakkoor Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, Ernakulam District was brought to sale and sold on 7.6.2004 for the sum of Rs.6,10,500/-. As on the date of sale, viz., 7.6.2004, the total amount due from the petitioner was approximately Rs.8,45,433/-. The revenue officials did not credit the said sum of Rs.6,10,500/- realised in the revenue sale held on 7.6.2004 in the account of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board till 25.5.2005. Long thereafter, on the request made by the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board, the Tahsildar, Muvattupuzha Taluk issued Ext.P2 sale notice dated 22.4.2008 proposing to sell another item of property belonging to the petitioner for realisation of the sum of Rs.61,458/- allegedly due as on 31.5.2008. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed challenging the said sale notice. W.P.(C) No.25579 of 2008 2 The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the amount claimed is exorbitant and that if the sale proceeds realised in the sale held on 7.6.2004 had been property accounted for without any delay and in time, the amount due from him would have been negligible and much below Rs.61,458/-. 2. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 30.11.2009 wherein it is stated that even after the revenue sale held on 7.6.2004, as on 23.11.2009, the sum of Rs.3,42,148/- was due from the petitioner. It is stated that large amounts are thus due from the petitioner and that any delay in recovering the said amount will cause serious prejudice to the workers. The second respondent, the Tahsildar concerned who was associated with the recovery has filed a counter affidavit dated 22.11.2008 wherein he has admitted the fact that 35 cents of land belonging to the petitioner was brought to sale and sold on 7.6.2004, that it was purchased by one Sri.Babu Peter for the sum of Rs.6,10,500/-, that he deposited the sale amount in two instalments viz., on 8.6.2004 and 17.6.2004 and that the sale was confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha by Ext.P1 order dated 25.8.2004. W.P.(C) No.25579 of 2008 3 3. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 21.1.2011, after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, having regard to the contention raised by the petitioner that had the sum of Rs.6,10,500/- realised in the sale held on 7.6.2004 been deposited in the account of the first respondent expeditiously, the amount due from the petitioner would have been much lower than what is claimed in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, I directed the first respondent to file a statement setting out the amount claimed by way of interest during the period from 7.6.2004 to 25.5.2005 and also the amount due from the petitioner as on 21.1.2011. Pursuant to the said direction, the learned counsel for the first respondent has filed a statement dated 4.4.2011, wherein in paragraph 4 it is stated that the interest claimed from the petitioner for the period from 7.6.2004 to 25.5.2005 is Rs.66,535/- and that the total amount due from the petitioner as on 21.1.2011 was Rs.2,93,530/- (including the aforesaid sum) and penal interest till the date of payment. The learned counsel submitted that the levy of Rs.66,535/- as interest for the period from 7.6.2004 to 25.5.2005 is perfectly in order for the reason that the amount realised in the revenue sale held on 7.6.2004 was received by W.P.(C) No.25579 of 2008 4 the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board from the revenue authorities only on 25.5.2005. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. It is not in dispute that in the revenue sale held on 7.6.2004, a parcel of land belonging to the petitioner was sold in public auction for the sum of Rs.6,10,500/- and the sale amount was realised from the purchaser on 8.6.2004 and 17.6.2004. The sale was also confirmed by Ext.P1 order dated 25.8.2004. The sale would not have been confirmed in favour of the purchaser had he not deposited the bid amount in full. As a matter of fact, Ext.P1 recites in categorical terms that the bid amount has been deposited on 8.6.2004 and 17.6.2004. However, the fact remains that the amount deposited by the successful bidder was made over to the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board only on 25.5.2005, nearly one year after the sale was held and 9 months after it was confirmed. In my opinion, as the bidder had deposited the money in full by 17.6.2004, it should have been credited in the account of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board as on that date and in any W.P.(C) No.25579 of 2008 5 case with effect from 25.8.2004, when the sale was confirmed. The failure of the revenue authorities to make over to the requisitioning authority the amount recovered by way of revenue sale cannot in my opinion operate to the detriment of the defaulter. His property had been brought to sale and sold on 7.6.2004. As the sum of Rs.6,10,500/- had been realised at least by 17.6.2004, I am of the opinion that for that portion of the amount due from the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be held liable to pay interest. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the claim made by the first respondent for interest on the balance amount due from the petitioner for the period from 17.6.2004 to 25.5.2005 cannot be sustained. Consequently, the amount due from the petitioner as on 25.5.2005 and thereafter will have to re-determined, after giving credit to the sum of Rs.6,10,500/- at least with effect from 17.6.2004. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to compute and prepare a statement setting out the amount due from the petitioner as on 31.5.2005 after giving up the claim for interest on the balance amount due as on 17.6.2004 for the period from 17.6.2004 to 25.5.2005 and the amount due as on W.P.(C) No.25579 of 2008 6 31.5.2011 and to communicate it to the petitioner within two weeks from today. The petitioner shall thereupon pay the said amount within one month from the date of receipt of the communication failing which it will be open to the respondents to proceed to recover the said sum with future interest in accordance with law. If the petitioner is in any way aggrieved by the statement of accounts furnished and the demand made on him, it will be open to him to canvass the correctness of the demand in other appropriate proceedings. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.