IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 11369 of 2007(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRASANTH N., S/O. O.K.NANDAKUMAR, SUDARSANA, PULIYANOOR, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE (S), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL, PALA. 4. C.K.JAYARAJAN, CHUNDACKATTU HOUSE, LALAM VILLAGE, PALA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK. ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF SALE DEED DT 11.4.02. P2 COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT 14.1.03. P3 COPY OF PETITION DT 30.3.04. P4 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 31.8.04. P5 COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT 1.11.04. P6 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 5.3.05. P7 COPY OF PETITION DT 25.11.05. P8 COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT 7.2.06. P9 COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT 5.5.06. P10 COPY OF RECEIPT DT 9.5.06. P11 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 5.6.06. P12 COPY OF ORDER DT 16.10.04. P13(A) COPY OF COPY OF RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF MONEY. P13(B) COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT 16.10.08. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 11369 OF 2007 C ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner purchased, vide Ext.P1, an extent of 4 cents of land from the 4th respondent and his mother on 11.4.2002. The 4th respondent was a defaulter of motor vehicle tax and the 3rd respondent issued notices under sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. As there was no bidders, the property was bid for Re.1/- and the sale was confirmed and the 3rd respondent was directed to assume possession vide Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, he was unaware of the attachment and sale. He filed Ext.P3 petition dated 30.3.2004 expressing his willingness to clear the arrears and requesting for reconveyance of the property. Thereafter, the petitioner made other representations and still later, by Ext.P8 dated 7.2.2006, the petitioner was informed that the reconveyance of the property can be considered on cancellation of the document in his favour and on payment of the entire amount due. The 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to remit WPC.11369/07 : 2 : the arrear amount of Rs.5,576/-. The petitioner paid Rs.5,576/- vide Ext.P10 receipt. Then, the petitioner approached the Sub Registrar for cancellation of Ext.P1 document as directed in Ext.P8 but he refused to do so and the petitioner approached the 1st respondent for an appropriate direction to the 3rd respondent by Ext.P11 representation. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has cleared all the arrears. He also relies on Ext.P12 which is stated to be an order passed by the 1st respondent in similar circumstance. A counter affidavit is filed to which a reply affidavit is also filed. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that in the counter affidavit filed it is pointed out that some more amount needs to be paid. He also points out Ext.P13 certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, Pala, would show that the petitioner had cleared the entire amount due. As regards the condition in Ext.P8 is concerned, it is pointed out that it is not possible to get the certificate. It is further contended that the WPC.11369/07 : 3 : condition is incorporated because the 4th respondent has also made an application. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that the 4th respondent had at one point of time filed an application seeking reconveyance. But, he is not now opposing to grant reconveyance in favour of the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader would submit that going by the reasons stated in Ext.P8, it is because there was an application filed by the 4th respondent that the condition relating to cancellation of the document was insisted. He further submits that Ext.P1 being after arrears, and section 44 is attracted, the condition was incorporated. The petitioner has admittedly not complied fully with the conditions in Ext.P8. Of course, he would point out that the petitioner is having only 4 cents vide Ext.P1. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that he is not pressing the application for reconveyance and he has no objection in reconveyance being granted to the petitioner, writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take a decision in the matter within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is for the 1st respondent to consider the WPC.11369/07 : 4 : effect of the petitioner not complying with the condition mentioned in Ext.P8 that there must be cancellation of Ext.P1 sale deed also. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks