IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 1823 of 2007(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- SUSEELA, W/O. RAJU, CHANNANIKKAD, PANACHIKKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, THE KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KOTTAYAM. 3. R.D.O., KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THE GOVT. OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV.K.D.BABU,SC R2 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JJJ WP(C).No. 1823 of 2007(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.12.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE JJJ S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.1823 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of arrears of toddy workers' welfare fund contributions due from the petitioner, who was a licensee of certain toddy shops under Kottayam Range during 2000- 01. The 1st respondent, through respondents 2 and 3, initiated proceedings for recovery of the dues under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Since there was no purchaser for the property of the petitioner, which was sold in the proceedings, the Government purchased it for ` 1/-. According to the petitioner, the property is worth ` 1 crore and the petitioner is prepared to pay the entire outstanding arrears and respondents 2 to 4 may be directed to reconvey the property to the petitioner on such payment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in District Collector v.Subaida Beevi [2010 (1) KLT 913] has held that in case of recovery proceedings initiated on the strength of a notification issued under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act, the Government cannot purchase the property in exercise of powers under Section 50(2) and as such proceedings can be initiated only in the name of the establishment, who sought recovery through revenue recovery proceedings. w.p.c.1823/07 2 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. In this case, the Government has purchased the land for ` 1/- in exercise of powers nuder Section 50(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, the decision in Subaida Beevi's case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case. As such, the purchase of the property for ` 1/- by the Government in exercise of powers under Section 50(2) of the Act is clearly unsustainable. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: If the petitioner pays the entire outstanding amounts due to the 1st respondent with up to date interest within two months from today, respondents 2 to 4 shall take appropriate steps to reconvey the property to the petitioner and complete the same within a further period of one month therefrom. The 1st respondent shall issue a communication to the petitioner specifying the exact amount due from the petitioner for satisfying the liability within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Interlocutory applications stand closed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.1823/07 3