IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1091 of 2011 ( ) =================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.8228/2011 DATED 12-07-2011 APPELLANT / PETITIONER ===================== K.SUKUMARAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN KRISHNA NIVAS MARAVANTHURUTHU P.O. K.S.MANGALAM VAIKOM KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV.SRI. V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ========================= 1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. PIN 686002 2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 686575. 3 TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST. PIN 686141. 4 VILLAGE OFFICER, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MARAVANTHURUTHU P.O. KOTTAYAM PIN 686608. 5 P.S.JAMAL, S/O.SULAIMAN, PARIMANATH HOUSE KULASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O. KOTTAYAM PIN 686608. 6 OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PIN - 682011. R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER K. MEERA R5 ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND R6 SRI.K.MONI, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.A. No. 1091 Of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 21st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant herein is the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. The appellant approached the learned Single Judge, seeking a direction against the respondents 1 to 3 to confirm sale conducted on 29.10.2010, in which he was a successful bidder. He also sought for an alternate prayer for refund of the purchase amount of Rs. 9,14,000/- with 5 % poundage, interest and cost incurred by the appellant, within a time frame. 3. The brief facts that led to the public auction of the property belonging to the private respondent herein are as under : There was a money decree against the private respondent herein, at the instance of a company by name St. Mary's Finance Limited. Unfortunately, the said company went into liquidation, wherein an official liquidator was appointed. At the instance of the official liquidator, the revenue officials concerned initiated revenue recovery proceedings against W.A No. 1091 of 2011 :2: the private respondent by bringing the property of the private respondent for public auction. The appellant herein was the successful bidder. He deposited Rs.1,37,100/- on 29.10.2010 and the balance amount of Rs.7,76,900/- on 27.11.2010. If the private respondent had come forward to pay money in accordance with Section 52 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (herein after referred to 'Act') within the time contemplated under the above said provision, there was no need for the appellant herein to deposit the balance sum of Rs.7,76,900/- on 27.11.2010, but the private respondent, a day prior to 27.11.2010 said to have deposited the amount due to St. Mary's Finance Limited with official liquidator. However, the liquidator did not direct the private respondent to approach the revenue authorities under the Act to proceed in accordance with Section 52. This led to the present controversy. 4. The private respondent herein, though deposited amounts due to the creditor, made a wrong deposit with the liquidator, instead of depositing the same with the treasury, as contemplated under the Act. Therefore, we cannot accept the contentions of the private respondent, that he made the deposit as contemplated under Sections 52 (a) and (b). In that view of the matter, it has to be presumed, there was no deposit as contemplated under Section 52 of the Act. However, the appellant is ready W.A No. 1091 of 2011 :3: to receive the amount paid by him, if the amounts are paid in accordance with the provisions of law along with some additional amount either by way of interest or compensation, as the appellant had pledged the gold ornaments of his wife to raise the money. According to the appellant's counsel, if the jewellery of the wife of the appellant were to be released from the pawn bond, interest has to be paid on the amount borrowed by him. Even otherwise, the appellant was deprived of using this amount for more than one year for no fault of him. As the appellant is coming forward to accept the money, instead of pressing for confirmation of sale, the private respondent is duty bound to pay certain interest on the amount deposited by the appellant. 5. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that, there shall not be any confirmation of sale, provided, private respondent complies with the following terms and condition; failing which, the appellant herein would be entitled to get confirmation of sale of the property and the respondent officials are directed to proceed with the matter in case of non-compliance of the following terms and conditions by the private respondent. i. The private respondent shall deposit interest at the rate of 8 % i.e. Rs. 80,118/- with poundage of Rs. 7,868/- with the treasury along with Rs. 1,573/-, 1 % of the W.A No. 1091 of 2011 :4: recovery charges as contemplated under law (total amount of Rs.1,57,360/-), on before the 30.01.2012. ii. If the above said amounts are deposited within the time frame as above, the respondent authorities are directed to retain Rs. 1,573/- recovery charges and refund entire amount along with Rs. 9,14,000/- to the appellant herein within 15 days from 31.01.2012 Sd/- MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd The figure “Rs. 1,57,360/-” occurring in the 5th line of paragraph 5 (i) of the judgment dated 21/12/2011 in W.A. No. 1091/2011 is corrected and substituted as “`89,559/-” as per order dated 30/01/2012 in I.A. No. 48/2012. /True copy/ P.A. to Judge