IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 WA.No. 1184 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.10389/2011 Dated 04/07/2011 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (H), TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (KVAT), MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 101. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANAKKARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679578. 7. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VATTAMKULAM VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679578. 8. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- P.A.RUKHIYA ABDUL, W/O.LATE K.V.ABDUL, AGED 48 YEARS, KADAVIL VALAPPIL HOUSE, AYILAKKAD, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 576. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.578/REV. DT.30.6.1965. ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.196/96/RD DT.22.3.1996. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1184 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed by the State challenging the order of the learned Single Judge directing reconveyance of property to the respondent. Government Pleader has relied on Division Bench judgment of this court in STATE OF KERALA Vs. GEORGE JACOB reported in 2010 (3) KLT 483 wherein it is held that Revenue sale does not get automatically cancelled on settlement of liability later under amnesty scheme. However, respondent's counsel submitted that respondent is a widow with three unmarried daughters and the land ordered to be reconveyed is only 20 cents, whereas she has paid Rs.60,47,000/- to settle the arrears of tax due from her later husband. In view of the sad plight of the respondent and the settlement of liability by her under amnesty scheme, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, no matter it may be at variance with Division Bench judgment. We, therefore, declare that the 2 dismissal of the appeal does not bar application of principles of law laid down by Division Bench judgment in the above reported case in appropriate cases. Writ Appeal is dismissed with the observation as above. Sd/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge True copy P.S. to Judge pms