IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 6255 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KARADAN RUKHIYA, AGED 38, D/O.ABDULLAKKUTTY, ARIKKULAM C.C.MAD, PARAPPUR, IRINGALLUR, PARAPPUR P.O., THIRURANGADI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE RECOVERY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRURANGADI. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIKKAL. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.6255/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22.5.2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE PALLIKKAL VILLAGE OFFICE FOR THE PAYMENT OF RS.28,500/- EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIKKAL TO THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10.7.2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE PALLIKKAL VILLAGE OFFICE FOR THE PAYMENT OF RS.1,61,500/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 6255 OF 2008 T ==================== Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to refund the amount paid by the petitioner as per Ext.P1 with interest thereon. 2. The facts of the case are that pursuant to the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against a defaulter, the property belonging to him was brought for sale under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The sale was conducted on 22/5/2007 and the petitioner was the successful bidder. In terms of Section 49(3) of the Revenue Recovery Act, by Ext.P1, on 22/5/2007 itself, petitioner remitted 15% of the sale consideration. As per the aforesaid provision, the balance 85% has to be remitted within 30 days thereafter. According to the learned Government Pleader on 20/6/2007, petitioner made a request for extension of time for remittance of the balance amount and that was rejected. 3. Despite the rejection of the request for extension as above, it would appear that Ext.P2 letter was issued by one Sri.T.N.Lokanadhan, Deputy Tahsildar on 10/7/2007 addressed to the Village Officer, Pallikkal WPC 6255/08 :2 : directing him to accept the balance 85% from the petitioner. Ext.P2 also says that further instructions will be issued later. Acting upon Ext.P2, the Village Officer accepted payment of balance 85% from the petitioner on 10/7/2007. 4. Admittedly, payment made by Ext.P3 was made beyond 30 days from 22/5/2007 when sale in question was conducted. Since the payment was made beyond the time specified in Section 49(3), the amount paid as per Ext.P3 was refunded to the petitioner, but however, since 15% was still retained by the respondents, petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction that she be refunded 15% paid by her by Ext.P1. 5. Section 49(3) of the Revenue Recovery Act provides that if a purchaser fails to remit 85% within 30 days from the date of sale, the initial deposit of 15% is liable for forfeiture. 6. In this case, sale was on 22/5/2007 and the payment of 85% made by the petitioner by Ext.P3, in pursuance to Ext.P2 note given by the Deputy Tahsildar, was on 10/7/2007, which is far beyond the 30 days prescribed in Section 49(3) of the Act. If that be so, the payment having been made belatedly ought not have been accepted also. However, WPC 6255/08 :3 : learned Government Pleader has an explanation for accepting payment. According to him, the Village Officer accepted payment only because of Ext.P2 letter issued by the Deputy Tahsildar. It is stated that the Deputy Tahsildar in question had no authority to have issued such a letter as he was Deputy Tahsildar, Plantation and was in no way related to revenue recovery. It was realising this mistake that the 85% remitted by the petitioner was also refunded. 7. In view of the fact that the payment was made beyond the 30 days, 15% remitted by the petitioner is liable to be forfeited as per the provisions of Section 49(3) of the Act, in which case the respondents cannot be faulted for not refunding the 15% remitted by him as per Ext.P1. Consequently, direction sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp