IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 WA.No. 1920 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.29951/2003 Dated 10/08/2004 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC: -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER,SMT. K. MEERA. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.4 IN WPC: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.K.SHAJI, MUNDOKKUDIYIL HOUSE, VALAKAM.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI. P. BABU KUMAR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE,SC, KTWWFB THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 1920 of 2009 APPENDIX APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS : ANNEXURE-1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10-8-04 IN WP(C) No.29951/03. ANNEXURE-2 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(Rt) No.2910/97/RD DATED 28-8-97. ANNEXURE-3: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) No.196/96/RD DATED 22-3-96. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1920 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. This appeal is preferred at the instance of the State Government, being aggrieved of the relief extended to the writ petitioner, facilitating re-conveyance of the bought-in-land taken over by the State invoking the provisions under Section 50(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 2. The sequence of events is as follows: The father of the 1st respondent was assessed under the provisions of the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act and some amount was due to the Board in this regard. As the assessee turned to be a defaulter, appropriate steps were taken to have the dues realised invoking the machinery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, by virtue of the notification issued under Section 71 of the said Act and the property belonging to the defaulter was put to sale. As there was no bidder, the property was taken over by the Government for '10ps'. by WA No. 1920 of 2009 -:2:- virtue of the enabling provision under Section 50(2) of the Act. After demise of the defaulter, the 1st respondent, who is his legal heir, approached this Court by filing O.P. No.8798/1997, which was disposed of directing the 1st respondent Secretary to Government and the District Collector to pass orders on the application filed by the petitioner on 26.03.1996 seeking for re-conveyance of the land; subject to the satisfaction of the liability. 3. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the District Collector passed an order directing re-conveyance of the 'bought-in-land' to the legal heirs of the deceased, on remitting a sum of `2,66,087/- as the market value; plus arrears and dues, as per G.O.(Rt) No.2910/97/RD dated 28.08.97. It is stated that the legal heirs of the deceased defaulter did not comply with the requirements. Later, they approached this Court again by filing W.P.(C) No.29951 of 2009 praying for a direction to set aside the proceedings as to the bidding of the property by the Government and to re-convey the land to the legal heirs of the deceased defaulter. The learned Single Judge, after hearing WA No. 1920 of 2009 -:3:- both the sides, passed the verdict on 10.08.2004 directing re-conveyance of the land, on satisfaction of the liability as aforesaid, under the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act. 4. The State filed a review petition contending that, besides the arrears under the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act, the defaulter was also liable to satisfy the “Abkari arrears” as well. Observing that no factual particulars were revealed and that the review petition was not in proper form, interference was declined and the review petition was dismissed as per order dated 01.012.2004, however without prejudice to the right of the review petitioners to file a fresh review petition, if so advised, with relevant materials. It was accordingly that the State filed RP No.239/05. The prayer in the review petition was as follows: “Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to review the judgment in W.P.(C) No.29951/2003 to the effect that the writ petitioner is bound to remit the Abkari dues also within a stipulated period and only after that the possession of land is allowed to be handed over to the writ petitioner.” WA No. 1920 of 2009 -:4:- 5. After considering the specific prayer raised by the Review petitioner/State, the learned Judge modified the earlier verdict as per order dated 27.02.2007 holding that, if Abkari arrears were also due, it was also liable to be cleared. The review petition was accordingly disposed of observing that the property would be re-conveyed on clearing the entire arrears under the said head as well. 6. On a fine morning, the State/Department chose to file this appeal, with a petition to condone the delay of '1,803' days. The delay however stands condoned by this Court, as per order dated 28.06.2011, referring to the proceedings pursued by the State by way of review petition. The question involved in this appeal is whether the appellants are justified in challenging the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge after obtaining a verdict in the desired manner; especially with regard to the liability of the defaulters to satisfy the Abkari arrears as well. 7. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent appeared and submitted before this Court that when the proceedings were pending before the learned Single Judge, the WA No. 1920 of 2009 -:5:- State was asked, as to whether they did have any objection with regard to the re-conveyance of the land, once the entire arrears were cleared in respect to the Abkari arrears as well. It is also stated that the respondent/State was directed to file an affidavit or statement as the case may be, which however was not satisfied in this regard. It was after considering the factual position, particularly the specific prayer in the Review Petition (so as to mulct the liability with regard to the Abkari arrears as well on the 1st respondent/writ petitioner), that the order dated 27.02.2007 was passed by the learned Single Judge, which is not liable to be challenged in any manner; submits the learned counsel. 8. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the plea now raised in the appeal is with regard to the mandate of G.O.(MS) No.196/96/RD dated 22.03.96, whereby a time limit of '2 years' has been prescribed for re-conveying the bought-in-land. Obviously, such a prayer was never incorporated in the Review Petition filed before the learned Single Judge. When the matter was finalised by the learned Single Judge by WA No. 1920 of 2009 -:6:- entertaining the Review Petition, the only ground raised was with reference to the liability of the defaulters to satisfy the 'Abkari arrears' as well. It was accordingly, that the matter was finliased and this being the position, there is absolutely no ground to call for any interference. We find that the appeal is devoid of any merit or bonafides. The Writ Appeal is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb