IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 8884 of 2004(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ABRAHAM THOMAS, AGED 75 YEARS, SON OF THOMAS, PALAKUNNAM ESTATE, VALAKAYAM, CHIRAKKADAVU.P.O., (VIA) KANJIRAPPALLY, CHERUVALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KANJIRAPPALLY 4. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, W/O.M.G.KUMARAN NAIR, MULACKAL, ELAMGULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. K.MANOJ, S/O.M.G.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, MULACKAL, ELAMGULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. K.VINOD, S/O.M.G.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, MULACKAL, ELAMGULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7. K..MANJU, D/O.M.G.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, MULACKAL, ELAMGULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 8. STATE OF KERLA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN FOR R.1,2,3 & 8 ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R4-7 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R4-7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON 23/07/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT.9.1.1992 ISSUED BY SUB COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. P2: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.29.9.2000 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P. NO.4987/1992-R. P3: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT.30.7.2001 ISSUED BY R2 TO PETITIONER. P4: TRUE COPY OF NOTES OF ARGUMENTS DT.14.3.2001 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER'S COUNSEL BEFORE R2. P5: TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF REVISION DT.17.10.2001 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P6: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT.14.1.2004 ISSUED BY R1 TO PETITIONER. P7: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR ASSUMPTION OF MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY DT.22.12.2003 FILED BY PETITIONER EBFORE R1. P8: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION INSPECTION, LOCAL INVESTIGATION AND PREPARATION MAHAZAR IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1 DT.22.12.2003. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.8884 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order whereunder the Land Revenue Commissioner has confirmed the order of the R.D.O. refusing to confirm the revenue sale in favour of the petitioner in recovery proceedings. In fact, property of the defaulter who is no more was sold to the petitioner in revenue recovery proceedings for Rs.5,21,000/- on 27.6.1991. When the file was placed before the R.D.O. for confirmation of sale, he noticed that sale was improper because the modern building in the property was not even valued before sale was effected. It was noticed that considering the market value and the debt amount, sale of a portion of the land was sufficient to meet the liability. Consequently, sale was found to be improper and hence the Sub Collector not only refused to confirm the sale, but cancelled the same vide Ext.P1 order. Instead of accepting the order and claiming refund of the amount, petitioner went on challenging the order of the RDO first before this court which led to Ext.P2 judgment. Pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment, the Sub Collector reconsidered the matter, but still confirmed his earlier order. The revision filed against this order namely, Ext.P3 is 2 confirmed by the Land Revenue Commissioner vide Ext.P6. Petitioner's contention is that Ext.P3 confirmed by Ext.P6 are illegal and arbitrary. I heard counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader and counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the deceased who are the present owners of the property. 2. While the petitioner's case is that there is nothing illegal or improper in the sale and the sale should have been confirmed, counsel for respondents 4 to 7 contended that the sale was effected in an illegal manner without taking note of civil suit pending between the defaulter and the Government whereunder substantial claim of the defaulter was upheld by the civil court and injunction was also granted against the Government. He further contended that defaulter cleared the entire arrears and the revenue recovery proceedings is withdrawn. I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P3 confirmed by Ext.P6 because around 5 acres of land was sold without taking into account the availability of a modern building in the said property. In fact it is mandatory that valuation should be done before sale of the property for assessing whether sale is at market value or not. Moreover, the finding of the Land Revenue Commissioner is that sale of part of the property would have been sufficient to settle the liability which was only around Rs.4,13,000/-. In fact, the sale price offered by the 3 petitioner is much above the debt amount and therefore, the finding of the lower authorities that sale of part of the property would have been sufficient to clear the arrears stands proved. In view of the findings in Ext.P6, I do not think there is any need to go into the other contentions raised by respondents 4 to 7 that the civil court has interdicted sale in revenue recovery proceedings and the sale is against orders of civil court which may also be sufficient to substantiate the order of the RDO declining to confirm the sale and of the Land Revenue Commissioner confirming the same. Therefore, petitioner's challenge against Ext.P3 confirmed by Ext.P6 is rejected. 3. The next question pertains to petitioner's claim for damages in as much as petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.5,25,000/- pursuant to sale on 27.6.1991. The petitioner has deposited the amount in 1991 pursuant to sale. In fact, when sale was cancelled by the RDO, petitioner could have contested the matter after collecting refund from the Government. For reasons best known to the petitioner, petitioner did not choose to claim refund of the amount which remained with the Government for a long period. There is no provision in the Revenue Recovery Act to pay compensation for the deposit that remained with the Government for long period. Respondents 4 to 7 also cannot be called upon to pay compensation 4 because sale was found by the RDO and the Land Revenue Commissioner not proper and they have set aside the sale. Moreover, the case of respondents 4 to 7 is that the matter was pending between the Government and the defaulter in civil court and sale was against injunction orders issued by the civil court. Even this court cannot direct the Government to pay compensation because petitioner allowed the amount to remain with the Government even after cancellation of sale. In any case atleast at this distance of time if petitioner claims refund, the same should be granted immediately. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms