IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 9624 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- R.PRAKASH, 49 YEARS, S/O.V.RAGHAVAN, KONDURAZHIKATHU HOUSE, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SASI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 9624 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 27th May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is that the property of the petitioner, which was subjected to coercive steps under the Revenue Recovery Act came to be vested with the Government as there were no bidders by virtue of the stipulation contained in Section 50 (2) of the Revenue Recovery Act. Subsequently, the the Government has permitted the petitioner to clear the outstanding liability, based on which the entire arrears were satisfied. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P.No. 23071 of 2002, which led to Ext.P2 judgment, directing the Government to pass appropriate orders for reconveyance of the land, as sought for by the petitioner. Pursuant to this, a letter/report dated 25.06.2005 was sent by the second respondent/District Collector, Pathanamthittia to the Government (referred to as item No.4 in Ext.P3 Government W.P.(C) No. 9624 OF 2009 2 Order dated 03.01.2006) and after considering the entire facts and circumstances as above, the Government passed Ext.P3 order permitting reconveyance of 22 cents of land in Sy.NO. 171/5.B-1, which was taken as 'bought-in-land' from Mr. V. Raghavan, father of the petitioner and necessary directions were given to the second respondent to implement the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the specific order as above and in spite of filing many a representation including Ext.P4 (filed by the father of the petitioner), the second respondent is simply sleeping over the issue. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondents, submits that the delay is only because of some doubts expressed by the second respondent, who sought for some clarification from the Government, particularly in view of pendency of several other similar cases and as to whether the 'market value' has to be collected while effecting reconveyance. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the Government has sought for the advice of the Advocate General of the State in this regard. W.P.(C) No. 9624 OF 2009 3 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being treated in a discriminatory manner, since the first respondent/Government has already passed similar orders in several other cases, without taking any steps to realise the market value of the land, as evident from Ext.P5. 4. In any view of the matter, as far as the present case is concerned, there is no case for the respondents that Ext. P3 order passed by the Government has been subjected to any review and hence it has become final. That apart, the rights of the Government in this regard to retain the 'bought-in-land' even after permitting the defaulter to clear the entire liability and accepting the due amount including the collection charges, has already been considered by a learned single Judge of this Court while passing the verdict in W.P.(C)No.26670 of 2008. It has been specifically observed in the said case that it is not at all correct or proper for the Government to accept the entire dues from the defaulter and to retain the 'bought-in-land' simultaneously, which accordingly was ordered to be reconveyed. It is seen that no contention is raised from the part of the W.P.(C) No. 9624 OF 2009 4 Government as to the right to realise the market value in the said case and it is submitted that no appeal has been preferred against the said verdict as on date. 5.In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to take a different view and as such, the second respondent/District Collector is hereby directed to implement Ext.P3 order passed by the first respondent/Government taking all necessary steps to reconvey the property within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk