IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34469 of 2010(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. T.A.MOUNAGURUSWAMY, S/O.LATE T.L.RAMASWAMI PILLAI, AGED 54 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT THOKKUVETTIL HOUSE, ADIMALI P.O., VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ADIMALI-685 561. 2. S.RAJAGOPAL, S/O.SUBRARAYALA NAIDU, HI TECH PAPER TUBES, NAIKAR GARDEN, THIRUNAGAR P.O., PALANI-624 615, TAMILNADU. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI, SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, (K.F.C.) VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C). NO.34469/2010-G: *ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED: 4. K.V. SEKHARAN, S/O. K.V. VEDIYAPPAN, KANKAYNOOR, POLOOR TALUK, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU. *IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DTD. 25/11/2010 IN I.A. 16140/2010. R1 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC, ADDL. R4 BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.N.J.JOHNSON. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34469 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The first petitioner is a guarantor with respect to the loan availed by a company M/s.Marayoor Paper Boards (P) Ltd. from the 2nd respondent Corporation. Property having an extent of 2.061 Hectares (5.09 Acres) in Marayoor Village in Devikulam Taluk belonging to the petitioner was mortgaged for securing the loan. Challenge in this writ petition is against the proceedings for sale of the said property initiated under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, for realisation of amounts due under the loan account in question. Ext.P1 is the sale proclamation issued by the 1st respondent scheduling auction sale of the property on 16.8.2010. According to the petitioner, he submitted a representation before the Hon'ble Minister for Finance of the State Government, as evidenced from Ext.P2 seeking six months time for payment of the amount due to the 2nd respondent Corporation and on that basis to keep in abeyance the sale proceedings. But the petitioner came to know that the W.P.(C).34469/10-G -2- property was sold in auction on the date on which it was proclaimed. According to the petitioner, the sale was taken place for an amount of Rs.1.15 Crores. It was contended that the sale was taken place in a fraudulent manner without proper notice to the petitioner. It is mentioned that the second petitioner is a business entrepreneur and he had offered a price of Rs.1.15 Crores for purchase of the property and under such circumstances the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 request before the 2nd respondent to set aside the sale and to accept the offer made by the 2nd respondent. Since such request was not acceded to, the writ petition is filed seeking to quash the sale proceedings. 2. In a counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated that the Company in question had availed loan to the tune of Rs.63 lakhs during the year 1998-'90 and when default was committed in repayment, proceedings under Section 29 of the SFC Act was initiated. The properties were advertised on several occasions under the provisions of the said Act. Since the steps had not yielded in recovering any amount, the 2nd respondent had initiated revenue recovery steps through the 1st respondent. The initial requisition was issued in this regard as early as on 30.6.1997, demanding a sum of Rs.68,70,000/- along W.P.(C).34469/10-G -3- with interest @ 19.75%. It is further stated that the property in question was published for sale on various dates such as 23.10.2009, 7.12.2009, 11.1.2010, 1.3.2010, 30.3.2010 and finally on 16.8.2010. It is stated that the additional 4th respondent was the highest bidder among 9 persons participated in the auction conducted on 16.8.2010. The bid was finalised in his favour for an amount of Rs.111.00 lakhs, whereas valuation of the property as per the report of the Village Officer was Rs.96,24,000/- only. It is stated that the additional 4th respondent had remitted the entire sale consideration before 15.9.2010 and the sale in question was confirmed by virtue of order issued by the Deputy Collector (R.R.) dt.10.11.2010 (Ext.R2(b)). Further, the declaration regarding succession as provided under Section 57(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act was also issued by the 1st respondent on 24.11.2010. It is mentioned that when the property was about to be delivered possession to the 4th respondent, the petitioner had approached this court and obtained an interim stay. It is further mentioned that the total arrears due is around Rs.414.00 lakhs as on 26.11.2010. It is mentioned that the petitioner had filed a civil suit as O.S.No.19/01 before the Sub Court, Thodupuzha and a further appeal suit as A.S.No.63/03 W.P.(C).34469/10-G -4- before the District Court, Idukki and thereafter a second appeal as R.S.A.No.91/07 before this court. Apart from that he had filed various writ petitions such as O.P.No.4425/02, WP(C). Nos.17222/04 and 31209/08 before this court. Being unsuccessful in all such legal attempts, the present attempt is only to disrupt the sale proceedings, is the contention of the 2nd respondent. 3. The 4th respondent had also filed a counter affidavit narrating the factual aspects as stated above. He had produced copies of receipts evidencing payment of the bid amount. It is mentioned that he had already parted with a huge amount of Rs.111.00 lakhs and that the sale stands confirmed in his favour. It is mentioned that the attempt of the petitioner is only to see that the property is not being enjoyed by the 4th respondent pursuant to the sale effected. 4. Considering the factual aspects as stated above and the rival submissions, I am of the view that the writ petition is totally unsustainable. The petitioner had not chosen to challenge the sale proceedings by resorting to any of the remedies available under the relevant statute, the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Contention of the petitioners that the sale was conducted without notice to the first petitioner and that he was not intimated about the amount for which the sale W.P.(C).34469/10-G -5- was effected, could not be countenanced in view of the fact that the 2nd respondent had produced evidence to the effect that the petitioner had acknowledged receipt of notice for sale as per Ext.R2(a). It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had not approached the appropriate authority seeking to set aside the sale by recourse either to Section 52 or 53 of the KRR Act. Nor the petitioner had raised any dispute regarding the procedure of sale at any point of time before confirmation of the sale or before issuing the sale certificates. Apart from that, the antecedent of the petitioner, as narrated in the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent, points out that he was making frivolous attempt all along to restrain recovery steps. The loan in question being availed as early as in the year 1988 and the recovery steps being initiated during the year 1990, I am not inclined to interfere in any manner with the steps taken regarding sale of the property. Under such circumstances I am of the view that the writ petition deserves no merit. In the result the writ petition is hereby dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb