IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22386 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PURUSHOTHAMA BHAT, S/O.KESAVA BHAT,AGED 52 YEARS,SHEDIKAVU, KOIPADY VILLAGE,KUMBALA POST,KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KASARAGOD PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.FF 113, KASARAGOD PIN 671 121, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G),OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES (GENERAL),KASARAGOD PIN 671 121. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE FARMERS DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 011. 4. THE ASST.GENERAL MANAGER, R.P.C.D,RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014 5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.J.RAJASHREE SRI.KODOTH PUSHPARAJAN, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.22386/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 29.10.6 BY R2. P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL DT 30.1.06. P3 COPY OF THE PETITION DT 13.3.09. P4 COPY OF THE PETITION DT 15.6.11. P5 COPY OF THE PETITITION DT 21.6.09. P6 COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DT 13.3.09. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 22386 of 2011 W ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 26th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that, 2.42 acres of property situated in survey No.124/Part 4 of Koipady village in Kasaragod district, which was mortgaged to the first respondent Bank for availing of a loan, has been sold and the Bank has purchased the property. It is stated that aggrieved by the above, representations have been made and that there has not been any decision in the matter. 3. When the matter came up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to discharge the liability of the Bank and the Bank may be directed to re-convey the property to him. Accordingly, the case was adjourned with a direction to the Standing Counsel for the first respondent Bank, which has now purchased the W.P.(C) No.22386/2011 : 2 : property, and he obtained instructions in the matter. Today, learned counsel for the Bank submitted that in the sale that was conducted on 26.05.2005, the property was purchased by it for `2,20,731/-. It is also submitted that sale was confirmed on 29.10.2006 and sale certificate also has been issued in its favour. It is submitted that despite all these, the Bank is still prepared to consider the request of the petitioner to re-convey the property provided the petitioner will re-pay the aforesaid amount together with reasonable interest thereon. It is submitted that if such a request is made, the Bank is willing to consider the same favourably. 4. In my view, in the facts of this case, the offer made by the Bank is very reasonable. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time so that funds could be generated. Taking note of the submissions thus made, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to make a representation as suggested by the counsel for the Bank and if such a representation is made within four weeks from today, W.P.(C) No.22386/2011 : 3 : the Bank will consider the same in the manner as submitted before this Court and thereupon, it will be open to the petitioner to comply with the terms suggested by the Bank and salvage the property. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/26/08 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge