IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20119 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ROY P.J., PORATHOOKKARAN HOUSE, MADAYIKONAM P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KREALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, PIN- 680003. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MADAIKONAM, THRISSUR - 680712. 5. SURESH, CHEMBARA HOUSE, MADAIKONAM, P.O. THRISSUR - 680712. ADV. MR.P.N. SANTHOSH – GOVERNMET PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.20119 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of JUNE, 2010 J U D G M E N T The respondents initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovering sales tax liabilities incurred by the petitioner's father. The petitioner submits that for recovery of that amount, the property belonging to the petitioner lying adjacent to the petitioner's father's property was brought to sale and the Government themselves purchased the same for rupee one. Later, the petitioner sought re-conveyance of the land. The second respondent demanded payment of arrears of tax due, interest and market value as a condition for re-conveyance of the land. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18711/07 and by Ext.P3 judgment, this Court directed the second respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner. Consequently, Ext.P4 order was passed demanding arrears of tax due, interest and market value of the property. The arrears of tax payable was later worked out and the petitioner remitted the same as evidenced by Ext.P6. In Ext.P4, the market value of the W.P.(c)No.20119/10 2 land has been fixed as Rs.30,000/- per cent. Taking the contention that the market value of the property would not exceed more than Rs.8000/-, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation before the second respondent. In the meanwhile Ext.P7 notice has been issued for auctioning the right to take usufructs from the property. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a)Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Exhibit P-4 to the extent it fixes the land value as Rs30,000/-., b)Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Exhibit P-7, c)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to take up and dispose of Exhibit P-5”. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I am at a loss to understand how the Government can act this way. They purchased the property for rupee one for arrears of tax due with interest. The claim of the Government can only be for arrears of tax due with interest. It has been paid already. If the Government insists on payment of market value of the property also in addition to the entire arrears with interest, the same can only be Shylockian in character. Of course, the learned Government Pleader submits W.P.(c)No.20119/10 3 that this is on the basis of a Government Order on the subject. Certainly, the Government can refuse to reconvey the property. But having decided to reconvey the property the Government cannot impose totally unreasonable conditions for the same, which would be hit by the Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in so far as Government cannot act loke a private money lender. Therefore, I have considerable doubt about the validity of such a Government Order itself, which is expropriatory in nature. I do not want to go further into that question since what the petitioner has sought in this case is only a direction to dispose of Ext.P5 representation in regard to the fixation of market value of the property as per Ext.P4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While considering the same the 2nd respondent shall keep in mind the above observations also. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.20119/10 4 W.P.(c)No.20119/10 5