IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12070 of 2009(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KUTTAPPAN, PULICKAL HOUSE, POONJAR VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MEENACHIL, PALA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C) NO. 12070/2009-C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 24/08/1992. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER DATED 12/05/2003. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 23/08/2003. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, IDUKKI TO THE PETITIONER DATED 06/10/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.196/96/RD DATED 22/03/1996. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 12070 of 2009 C ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of 2.5 acres of land in Poonjar Vadakkekara village. During 1984-85, petitioner was the licensee of certain toddy shops. Default led to recovery proceedings and finally, the aforesaid property of the petitioner was sold in revenue recovery proceedings and Government purchased the land. Subsequently, availing of the benefit of an Amnesty scheme, petitioner settled the liability. In this writ petition, what the petitioner contends is that since he has settled the liability and as revenue recovery proceedings have been withdrawn as per Ext.P4, the property should be re-conveyed to him, giving the benefit of Ext.P5 Government Order. 2. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, petitioner has no case that the Amnesty scheme under which the liability has been settled, enables the W.P.(C) No.12070/2009 : 2 : petitioner to claim re-conveyance of the property. In that view of the matter, the issue raised by the counsel for the petitioner is fully covered against him by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. George Jacob [2010 (3) KHC 381], wherein it has been held that reconveyance can be claimed only if Amnesty scheme provides for re-conveyance. In this case, admittedly there is no such provision in the Amnesty Scheme, the benefit of which was availed by the petitioner. Therefore, the issue is covered against the petitioner and the writ petition is to be rejected. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge