IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 2032 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- RUKHIYA, W/O.ABDHU K.V., PARAPPURATH HOUSE, UTHAYAGIRI P.O., ALAKKODU VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE RECOVERY), COLLECTORATE, KANNUR. 3. THE SPL.DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THALIPARAMBA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KANNUR. 4. THE MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, ALAKODE BRANCH, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR. R1 TO R3 BT GOVT.PLEADER SMT. P.A.RAZIYA R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AV WPC.NO.2032/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : P1 : COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DOCUMENT NO – 1379/1984 OF SRO ALAKODE DATED 02/06/1984 P2 : COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 28/04/99 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/02/07 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/02/08 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE AV S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 2032 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT By invoking provisions of Section 50(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, respondents 1 to 3 purchased the property belonging to the petitioner for Re 1/- in proceedings for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the 4th respondent bank. Subsequently, the petitioner settled the dues of the bank and the bank has settled the loan account accepting the same. Consequently, the entire loan amount has been paid off and the loan cleared. The petitioner now seeks return of the property purchased by respondents 1 to 3 for Re 1/- invoking powers under Section 50 (2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondent in purchasing the property for Re 1/- is illegal and unsustainable and that issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in District Collector, Alleppey and others v. Subaida Beevi and another [2010(1) KHC 936]. The petitioner W.P.(C)No.2032/10 2 seeks the following reliefs; “i. Call the entire records leads ext P4 and quash the Ext P4 by issuing the writ of certiorari, forthwith ii. To declare that sale dated 5/8/1999 conducted by the 2nd and the 3rd respondent by which the government of kerala took over 2 acres of land owned by the petitioner in R. S-1 in Thadikadavu amsom Arangam desom in Thaliparamba Thaluk by virtue of Ext P1 partition deed as illegal and wrong iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to 3rd respondent to hand over 2 acres of land owned by the petitioner in R. S-1 in Thadikadavu amsom Arangam desom in Thaliparamba Thaluk to the petitioner.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. The contention of respondents 1 to 3 is that re- conveyance of the property purchased for Re 1/- in exercise of powers under Section 50(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act can be only if the party applies for the same within two years. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the action of respondents 1 to 3 is the contention raised. The 4th respondent does not dispute the fact that the amounts due to them have been completely paid off and no amounts are due from the petitioner to the 4th respondent bank in respect of the W.P.(C)No.2032/10 3 loan, proceedings for recovery of which culminated in the impugned action of respondents 1 to 3. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The question of restriction of two years in applying for re- conveyance of property under Section 50(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act arises only when that purchase for Re 1/- is valid and proper. Admittedly, the property was purchased in the name of the Government and not in the name of the 4th respondent bank. A Division Bench of this Court has in Subaida Beevi's case (supra) categorically held that in revenue recovery proceedings pursuant to a notification issued under Section 71 of the Act the Section 50(2) of the Act can be invoked only for the purchase of the property only in the name of the authority who has requested initiation of revenue recovery proceedings and not in the name of the Government. Admittedly, in this case, the property has been purchased in the name of the Government and not in the name of the 4th respondent. Therefore the action of respondents 1 to 3 in purchasing the property for Re 1/- in the name of the Government is without jurisdiction and unsustainable. The 4th W.P.(C)No.2032/10 4 respondent now admits that they have received the entire amount in settlement of the loan account. That being so, respondents 1 to 3 cannot take a Shylockian attitude to retain the property belonging to the petitioner, insofar as no amounts are due either to the 4th respondent or to respondents 1 to 3 now. Further, that proceedings of respondents 1 to 3 in purchasing the property in the name of the Government is clearly against the Division Bench decision of this Court in Subaida Beevi's case (supra). In the above circumstances, Ext.P4 order by which respondents 1 to 3 have refused to re-convey the property to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to see that the property in question is re-conveyed to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.2032/10 5 S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 2032 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.2032/10 6 Dated this the 14th day of October, 2011 ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 50(2) can be invoked only for purchasing the property in the name of the institution on whose behalf revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated as per the Division Bench decision of this Court in District Collector, Alleppey and others v. Subaida Beevi and another [2010(1) KHC 936]. In this case, the property has been purchased by the Government for ` 1. The petitioner further submits that the entire liability has been cleared and therefore, the property is liable to be re- conveyed to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader seeks time. Post after two weeks. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.2032/10 7 W.P.(C)No.2032/10 8