IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 342 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33632/2008 Dated 25/06/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 IN WPC --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, (RR), VAIKOM. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEZHOOR, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. 7. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADDL. A.G. SRI. RANJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN WPC -------------------------------- JOSEPH THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT PRAKKEMBEL HOUSE, VAKKAD P.O., (KARA), NEZHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. ADV. SRI.SIJI ANTONY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W. A. No. 342 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge directing reconveyance of respondent's property purchased in revenue recovery proceedings by the Government in 1994, based on settlement of liability by the respondent under Amnesty Scheme. We have heard Addl. Advocate General appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The liability sought to be recovered from the respondent was sales tax arrears for 1992-93. When revenue recovery proceedings were initiated, tax arrears with accrued interest was Rs. 1,68,447/-. After serving notice under the Revenue Recovery Act attachment was made by the Government on 14.1.1994. After excluding 5 cents of land with residential building of the respondent, revenue recovery authorities notified balance 74.5 cents for sale in auction. At the third auction the revenue recovery authorities purchased the property for WA 342/2010 2 Re.1 on 22.6.1994 in exercise of powers under Section 50 of the RR Act. Even though respondent contested the auction sale before the civil court by filing OS No. 573 of 1995 the same was dismissed on 23.6.1995 and thereafter the sale was confirmed on 27.11.1997. The revenue recovery authorities took physical possession of the property on 12.12.1997 and periodically the right to take usufructs was auctioned. Respondent himself purchased in auction the right to take usufructs, namely, the yield from rubber trees. There is no dispute that the land got vested in Government after purchase in revenue recovery proceedings and after confirmation of sale and taking over possession. However, Government introduced Amnesty Scheme for settlement of arrears of sales tax whereunder full interest was waived if tax arrears was paid within the time stipulated. Respondent cleared the arrears excluding interest on 31.7.2008 under the Amnesty Scheme. However respondent's request for reconveyance of property purchased by the State in revenue sale in the year 1994 was rejected. In the Writ Petition filed against rejection order, the learned single Judge directed reconveyance of the property against which this Writ Appeal is filed by the State. WA 342/2010 3 3. We have in a similar case interpreting the provisions of the same Amnesty Scheme in W.A. No. 1742 of 2009 held that property once sold in revenue recovery proceedings whether to the State or to other person is not affected and the Amnesty Scheme does not provide for reversal of those proceedings or restoration of property. So much so following the said judgment, we have to allow the Writ Appeal in principle by holding that Amnesty Scheme as such does not entitle the respondent for restoration of property. However, we feel on equitable consideration respondent is entitled to pray for relief from this Court under discretionary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We have exercised discretion and granted relief to the respondent in WA No. 1742 of 2009 also. We notice that the land involved is only 74.5 cent of land in a Village area from which Government was getting only paltry sum by sale of usufructs. In 14 years' time, Government could not resell the property or recover the arrears. Respondent raised the funds and has now cleared the arrears under Amnesty Scheme only on expectation of return of land, possession of which was also with him under licence being granted. Further State has excluded five cents of land and a residential house of WA 342/2010 4 the respondent from recovery proceedings. Respondent is stated to be not in possession or ownership of any other land and the land involved is only the property surrounding the residential house in five cents. Considering all these facts, we direct the Government to reconvey the land on remittance of Rs.1 lakh which we consider as reasonable price for the land. We grant three months' time to the respondent to remit the amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the Tahsildar and on receipt of payment, the sale made in favour of the State and confirmed will stand cancelled and the property will revert back to the respondent. However, if payment is not made, Writ Appeal will stand allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge will stand set aside. Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. kk WA 342/2010 5