IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 OP.No. 17971 of 2001(M) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.A. JAYAKUMAR, S/O.AYYAPPAN PILLAI, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, P.O. CHEEYAMBAM, PULPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER, SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MANANTHAVADI. 4. TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAVADI. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 17971/2001-M ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.28896/2001 IN O.P. NO. 17971/2001 DISMISSED 30/08/2010. SD/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE REMITTANCE OF Rs.8,78,350 BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29/06/1999. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF Rs.17,56,650 DATED 28/07/1999. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 25783/1999 DATED 19/01/2000. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/03/2000 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CONFIRMING THE ORDERS IN RESPECT OF THE SALE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/03/2000 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CONFIRMING THE SALE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.56 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 26/07/2000. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LRB5-14713/2000 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 19/08/2000 SETTING ASIDE EXT.P4 ORDER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 28927/2000 DATED 12/02/2001. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(B)5-37152/2000 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 30/04/2001. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAVADY DATED 14/05/2001. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE INFORMATION RELATING TO THE SALE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 05/05/2001. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(B)5-37152/2000 DATED 02/05/2001 GOVT. STATING THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED FOR INTEREST. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. -------------------------------------- O.P. No.17971 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P12 order issued by the Commissioner of Land Revenue. The petitioner participated in auction sale of immovable property conducted under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, on 29.6.1999. The bid was finalised in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.26,35,000/-, which the petitioner had remitted on 28.7.1999, as evidenced from Exts.P1 & P2. Since the sale was not confirmed in favour of the petitioner and the property was not delivered possession, he approached this court in a writ petition. In Ext.P3 judgment this court directed the respondents to take a decision regarding confirmation of the sale, within a period of one month. Through Ext.P4 the sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner. In a revision filed by the defaulter the Commissioner of Land Revenue had issued Ext.P7 order on 19.8.2000 setting aside the sale and remanding the matter for fresh disposal by the District Collector. Consequently the District Collector took a decision to set O.P.17971/01 -2- aside the sale, because the liability of the defaulter has already been annulled in statutory revision filed by him. Inspite of setting aside the sale, the amount remitted by the petitioner was not refunded. Petitioner thereupon approached this court again in O.P. No.28927/2000. In Ext.P8 judgment the 1st respondent was directed to refund the amount with appropriate interest as admissible, to be determined by the Commissioner (LR). The refund was directed to be effected within a period of six weeks from the date of the judgment. In compliance with Ext.P8 judgment the Commissioner (LR) has issued proceedings ordering refund as per Ext.P9. Consequent order was issued by the Tahsildar in Ext.P10 and the amount was ultimately refunded on 5.5.2001. But, with respect to payment of interest, the Commissioner (LR) issued Ext.P12 proceedings, presumably in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P8 judgment, holding that the petitioner is not entitled for any interest since Section 55 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act contemplates only refund of purchase money. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P12. 2. Smt.K.A. Sanjeetha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was laches on the part of the revenue recovery authorities in not revealing the fact that the liability O.P.17971/01 -3- was remaining unsettled at the time of the sale. There was suppression about pendency of the statutory revision filed by the defaulter. But there is no cogent evidence or record to show that the revenue recovery authorities were aware about pendency of the revision petition. It is further pointed out that this court in Ext.P3 Judgment had issued directions for refund of the amount in case confirmation of the sale is not possible. But it is worth noticing that immediately after Ext.P3 judgment the sale was confirmed, as per Exts.P4 and P5. Hence I am of the opinion that the respondents could not be found fault with for the cancellation of the demand by the revisional authority on the basis of approach made by the defaulter. The respondents could not be found fault with in the matter where the defaulter exercised the right of revision before the Commissioner of Land Revenue for setting aside the sale. These are all matters which may occur as incidental in all revenue recovery sales. 3. However, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was entitled for refund of the amount as on the date of setting aside the sale. It is evident that the revisional order of the Commissioner of Land Revenue (Ext.P7) was issued on 19.8.2000. The exact date on which the District Collector had issued the consequential order is not discernible from the O.P.17971/01 -4- records. However, it is evident that the petitioner was not refunded with the amount at that time and he became compelled to approach this court seeking refund. It is true that, after Ext.P8 judgment refund was effected without much delay. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that, Government got an extension of the time stipulated in Ext.P8 judgment, till 30.4.2001. Ext.P9 order of refund was issued on 30.4.2001 and payment was effected on 5.5.2001. But there was delay of about nine months in between the date of Ext.P7 and the actual date of effecting payment. As per Section 55 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, it is incumbent on the part of the respondents to make refund of the purchase money as and when the sale is set aside. In the case at hand, the exact date on which the District Collector had issued order setting aside the sale, in compliance with Ext.P7, is not discernible. However, fact remains that the petitioner could get refund of the amount only after considerable delay, that too after approaching this court and obtaining Ext.P8 Judgment. In Ext.P12 order there was no proper consideration of the issue, regarding eligibility for getting interest. Merely because Section 55 does not contemplate payment of interest, the petitioner could not be denied of his legitimate right to get compensated on account of the laches and O.P.17971/01 -5- defaults on the part of the respondents. Hence I am of the considered opinion that it is only just and proper to order payment of interest on the amount refunded at least for a period of six months, as compensation to the petitioner for the delayed payment, which was resultant due to the inaction and laches on the part of the respondents, which can be either deliberate or due to gross dereliction or negligence in discharge of official duties cast upon them. Considering the prevailing rate of interest in the commercial parlance and the rate of interest being collected with respect to arrears of public revenue due under various statutes, I am of the opinion that payment of interest at 9% will only be moderate. 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. Ext.P12 order is hereby quashed. The respondents are held liable for payment of an amount equivalent to 9% interest calculated on Rs.26,35,000/- for a period of six (6) months, to the petitioner. The payment shall be effected at the earliest, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb