IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 RSA.No. 770 of 2010() --------------------- AS.271/2005 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.26/2003 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/ APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------------------------- RAJAN,S/O.MAYANDI,RESIDING AT KULAPPURA HOUSE, KAKKATHODE,THENARI AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI. T.C. SURESH MENON, SRI. JIBU P.THOMAS, SRI.P.S. APPU, SRI.C.A. ANOOP. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE , REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD. 2. TALUK TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE,PALAKKAD. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- RSA No.770 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated 19th July 2010 Judgment Aggrieved by the concurrent findings against him, the plaintiff in OS No.26/03 before the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad, has come up in appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The property had an extent of 4.55 acres. The said extent of property was sold by the Government on 03.10.1979 under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, for realising the amounts due from the plaintiff, towards sales tax arrears and toddy workers welfare fund. The sale was confirmed by the District Collector by proceedings dated 04.02.1991. Presently, the property is in possession of the Government. RSA 770/10 2 3. The plaintiff had defaulted in payment of sales tax arrears of Rs.13,748/- and toddy workers welfare fund of Rs.25,136/-, totalling to an amount of Rs.38,884/-. It is pointed out that the property was sold for 10 paise. Claiming that the sale is bad in law, the suit was laid. The suit was resisted by the State and they pointed out that the plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs in the suit. 4. The Trial Court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A2(b). On a consideration of the materials before it, the Trial Court found that there is no ground to interfere with the sale and accordingly, the suit was dismissed. 5. The matter was carried in appeal as AS No.271/05 before the District Court, Palakkad. The lower Appellate Court independently considered the case put forward by the plaintiff and found that the sale is good in law and also that as long as the plaint schedule property vests with the defendants Government, they have got every RSA 770/10 3 right to auction the right to take income from the property. Holding so, the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. The said Judgment and decree are assailed in this Second Appeal. 6. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant tried to canvass that the sale was not warranted, he was unsuccessful in doing so. Faced with the above situation, he prayed that he may be permitted to pay the entire arrears due from him and to move the Government for appropriate reliefs. 7. The above prayer seems to be quite just and reasonable. The property sold is 4.55 acres of land, for realising the arrears which would only come to nearly Rs.80,000/-. May be that the appellant could have paid the amount earlier. But, that does not mean that he should not be given an opportunity for taking steps to get back his property. While dismissing this Second Appeal, there will be a direction to the Government to consider the representation, if any filed by the appellant, after depositing RSA 770/10 4 the entire arrears due with other amounts due, if any, from him towards arrears of sales tax and toddy workers' welfare fund, under S.52 of the Revenue Recovery Act, within one month from the date of receipt of the representation. Subject to the above direction, the appeal is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RSA 770/10 5