IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 4665 of 2004(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SMT.KUNJUMOL XAVIER W/O. LATE XAVIER THOMAS, VATTUVAYALIL, AMBARANIRAPPEL P.O., BHARANANGANAM, MEENACHIL. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RE4VENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, KOTTAYAM. 5. TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM. 6. VILLAGE OFFICER, KONDOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 7. MOLY ALEX W/O. ALEX MANUEL, CHARANAMKUNNEL, AMBARANARAPPEL P.O., KOTTAYAM, NOW RESIDING AT ELAPPUMKAL, ERATTUPETTA. R1 TO 6 BY G.P. SRI.K.P.PRADEEP R7 BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.T.J.JOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.21.4.01 AND ISSUED BY R4. P2: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT.28.5.2001, FILED BY PETITIONER'S HUSBAND BEFORE GOVERNMENT. P2(a): TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF STAY DT.29.5.2001 ISSUED TO PETITIONER'S HUSBAND. P3: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT.7.6.01 FILED BY PETITIONER'S HUSBAND BEFORE R3. P4: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT.25.6.01, FILED BY PETITIONER'S HUSBAND. P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.27.7.2001 IN CMP 35705/2001 IN O.P. 21905/2001. P6: TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF MONEY DT.24.8.2001 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICER OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY, PALA. P7: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.19.9.2001 IN O.P. 21905/2001. P8: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.24.10.02 IN W.A. 3688/2001. P9: TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF REVISION FILED BEFORE R2 DT.12.9.02. P10: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.27.1.2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R7(a): TRUE COPY OF DECLARATION MADE BY THE TAHSILDAR DT.3.4.02. R7(b): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.24.2.2002 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR TO THE S.I. OF POLICE, THIDANAD. R7(c): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SALE DT.23.3.2004 ISSUED BY RDO, PALA. R7(d): TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DT.21.4.2004 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, KONDOOR. R7(e): TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DT.22.4.2004 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, KONDOOR. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 4665 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order whereunder the Land Revenue Commissioner in a revision petition declined to reconvey the petitioner's property sold in recovery proceedings to seventh respondent. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioner, Government Pleader and counsel appearing for the 7th respondent. Petitioner's property was notified for sale on 16.5.2001 for recovery of arrears of sales tax of Rs. 68,720/-. In the sale held on 25.5.2001, the seventh respondent purchased the property for Rs. 95,000/-. Even though petitioner filed objections against confirmation of sale and for setting aside the sale before the District Collector and RDO through Exts. P3 and P4 on 7.6.2001, the same were not answered. Sale thereafter was confirmed on 20.7.2001. When the petitioner filed Writ Petition in this Court, this Court granted interim stay on payment of Rs. 30,000/- by the petitioner which was remitted by the petitioner on 24.8.2001. Even though O.P. got dismissed, in Writ Appeal this Court directed the 2 Land Revenue Commissioner to consider the objections of the petitioner for setting aside the sale and for reconvey of the property to the petitioner. The Land Revenue Commissioner vide Ext.P10 order dated 27.1.2004 rejected the petitioner's request against which this W.P. is filed. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that since RDO and District Collector did not consider petitioner's objections against confirmation of sale and for setting aside the sale, petitioner was under the impression that property was not going to be ultimately sold to the purchaser. According to the petitioner, petitioner challenged the sale in this Court and even deposited Rs. 30,000/- within one month from the date of confirmation of sale in favour of the 7th respondent on 24.8.2001. In fact, it is only on account of pendency of the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal in this Court and revision before the Commissioner that petitioner could not clear the arrears. Even though petitioner has alleged mala fides and favouritism in the confirmation of sale in favour of the 7th respondent without giving opportunity to the petitioner to clear the arrears, I do not think the same stand proved. 3 However, the bona fide dispute raised by the petitioner is evident from the earlier round of litigation in this Court and the payment of Rs. 30,000/- under interim orders of this Court which is made within one month after the date of confirmation of sale in favour of the 7th respondent, that is on 24.8.2001. It is also pertinent to note that under interim orders of this Court to maintain status quo, the purchaser, namely, the 7th respondent has not developed the property by making any investment. In the circumstances, and in the interest of justice and equity, I feel the property should be restored to the petitioner, but on petitioner paying adequate compensation to the 7th respondent. Considering the escalation in value of property and the possible loss that would have been suffered by the seventh respondent, I set aside Ext.P10 order, the sale confirmation and all consequential steps for effecting mutation in favour of the 7th respondent on petitioner paying Rs. 4 lakhs to the 7th respondent, which includes the remittance made by her towards price which will be adjusted towards tax arrears along with Rs. 30,000/- paid by the petitioner. If the petitioner gives a DD for Rs. 4 lakhs on or before 15.4.2008 to the 7th respondent, then all 4 proceedings which led to confirmation of sale including Exts.P1 and P10 will stand set aside and there will be direction to respondents 5 and 6 on production of receipt from the 7th respondent to effect mutation in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner will be entitled to retain possession of the property thereafter. 7th respondent will issue receipt for payment made by the petitioner. Since the demand first in 2001 was only Rs. 68,000/- and the purchaser has paid Rs. 95,000/- and petitioner deposited Rs. 30000/-, there will be direction to respondents 3 to 6 to treat these remittances as full and final settlement of tax arrears. If the petitioner does not make payment within the time granted, then Ext.P10 will stand confirmed. W.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 5