IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 26670 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- GEORGE JACOB, MATTOM HOUSE, POST MANASSERI, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.M.V.BOSE MS.NISHA BOSE MS.VINOD MADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE ASISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-20. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. K.R. DEEEPA FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26670 of 2008 EXT.P1: COPY OF NOTICE DATED 31.3.1993 ISSUED BY R3 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.108/08/TD DATED 26.5.2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DTD 2.6.2008 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER FROM ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P4: COPY OF PETITIONER'S REQUEST DTD 30.7.2008 TO R3. EXT.P5: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DTD 30.7.2008 EXECUTED ON STAMP PAPER BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE R3. EXT.P6: COPY OF INTIMATION DTD 22.8.2008 RECEIVED BY PETITIONER FROM R4. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 25.8.2008 FROM THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE REVENUE MINISTER. EXT.P8: COPY OF NOTICE DATED 25.8.2008 ISSUED BY R3. EXT.P9: COPY OF CHALAN DTD 10.9.2008. EXT.P10: COPY OF RECEIPT DTD 10.9.2008. EXT.P11: COPY OF CHALAN DTD 3.10.2008 EXT.P12: COPY OF LETTER DATED 3.10.2008 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER DATED 3.10.2008. EXT.P13: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD 24.3.2008 IN W.P.(C) 7820/2008. EXT.P14: COPY OF ORDER DTD 16.12.2008 IN W.P.(C)NO.26670/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.88/08/RD DTD 9.2.1968. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.196/96/RD DTD 22.3.1996. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.26670 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a defaulter in payment of abkari dues for the year 1993-1994. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against him for realisation of an amount of Rs.29,46,823/-. 10.56 acres of land in Re-Survey No.172 in Kodiyathur Village in Kozhikode District belonging to the petitioner was purchased by the State in revenue recovery proceedings for rupee one. Much later, the petitioner approached the Government for paying off the amounts due from him availing of the benefits under the Amnesty Scheme declared by the Government. He expressed willingness to pay the amounts in accordance with the Amnesty Scheme. His proposal was accepted by the Government by Ext.P8 notice dated 25.8.2008 and the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.27,61,131/- in instalments or in a lump sum. By Ext.P2 dated 3.10.2008 addressed to the District Collectors of Kottayam, Kozhikode and Palakkad, the Assistant Excise commissioner, W.P.(c)No.26690/08 2 Kottayam informed them that the petitioner has paid the entire amount of Rs.27,61,131/- payable as per the Amnesty Scheme. Thus the petitioner has discharged the entire liability in respect of his abkari dues. The grievance of the petitioner now is that after having accepted the entire amount due from him in accordance with the Amnesty Scheme for realisation of which amount only his property was sold in revenue recovery proceedings, the respondents now take an unreasonable stand that they will not re-convey the property to the petitioner which was bought by the State in revenue recovery proceedings for rupee one. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “(i) to call for the entire records leading upto Exhibit P6 and (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to release the 10.56 acres of land in Kodiyathur Village belonging to the petitioner on payment of entire amount under Exhibit P2 Amnesty Scheme for remittance of Abkari Arreras. (iii) to direct the respondents to settle the matter as offered by the petitioner in Exhibit P4 and P5 releasing the 10.56 acres of land belonging to him after receiving the amount in terms of Exhibit P2, Ext.P3 and Ext.P6”. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The learned Government Pleader submits that in case of lands W.P.(c)No.26690/08 3 purchased by the Government in revenue recovery proceedings, the defaulter should approach the Government for re-conveyance of the land within two years as per Exts.R1 (a) and R1(b) Government Orders, which the petitioner has not done and therefore, he cannot now seek re-conveyance of the land. The learned Government Pleader further submit that there is no provision for such re-conveyance of land also in the Kerala Finance Act, 2008. 3. On 16.12.2008, I passed the following interim order: “The learned Government Pleader submits that there is no provision of law to re-convey the property which was bought by the government in the revenue recovery proceedings. I am surprised to hear such contention from the Government. The Government has ample powers to decide as to whether a property purchased in revenue recovery action should be re- conveyed to the party concerned after receiving the money due from the party. Here in fact the Government has accepted the money paid by the petitioner taking advantage of the amnesty scheme. As such, the Government cannot be heard to contend that in the absence of any provision of law, the Government is not in a position to re-convey the property, that too, after accepting the money due from the petitioner. In view of the said opinion of the Court, the Government Pleader seeks time to get instructions from the Government”. W.P.(c)No.26690/08 4 Despite that order, the Government Pleader now takes a contention that the Government will not re-convey the property in view of the absence of legal provisions for the same. 4. I am of opinion that it is thoroughly unbecoming of the Government to take such a cantankerous contention. That is a Shylockian attitude, which ill-fits the Government of a welfare State. If the Government could not re-convey the land for want of provisions of law, they should have flatly rejected the offer of the petitioner to pay the amounts under the Amnesty Scheme and continued the revenue recovery proceedings. After having permitted the petitioner to pay off the entire dues in accordance with Amnesty Scheme and taking the money from the petitioner in settlement of the dues from him, the Government cannot now say that in view of the absence of provisions of law, the property won't be re- conveyed to the petitioner. The Government cannot be allowed to keep both the money and the property of the petitioner purchased by the Government in revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount, which they have subsequently received from the petitioner, that to for Re.1, W.P.(c)No.26690/08 5 which if permitted would be a travesty of justice. 5. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. The petitioner has paid off the entire amounts due from him towards abkari dues taking advantage of the Amnesty Scheme, which the Government has accepted. As such, no amounts are due from the petitioner to the State now. That being so, the property, which was bought by the Government for Re.1/- for realisation of the very same amount, cannot be retained by the Government any longer. Accordingly, I direct the Government to re-convey the property purchased by the Government in revenue recovery proceedings for realisation of abkari dues from the petitioner which has been paid by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P12, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.26690/08 6