IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 22825 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. I. NARARAYANA NAYAK, H/O.LATE CHANDRAVATHI. 2. I. DIVAKARA NAYAK, S/O. NARAYANA NAYAK AND CHANDRAVATHI. 3. I. MANMOHANA NAYAK, -DO- 4. I. NAVEENA KUMAR, -DO- 5. I. SAVITHA, D/O. NARAYANA NAYAK AND CHANDRAVATHI, ALL ARE RESIDING AT IDDYAL HOUSE, POST MAIRE, MADOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KASARAGOD PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., NO. FF 113, KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-671 121. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE FARMERS DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 029. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R1 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 22825/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/06/2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 13/03/2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 17/06/2009 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /True Copy/ vps PA to Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 22825 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners availed a loan of Rs.8,83,070/- from the first respondent bank. The loan was secured by a mortgage of 5.20 acres of land situate in Survey Nos.353/4, 353/5A and 354/5B of Madoor Village, Kasaragod Taluk, Kasaragod District. When he defaulted repayment of the loan, the bank took steps to bring the security to sale without the intervention of the court under the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Banks Act, 1984. A sale was accordingly held on 28.6.2005. In the sale, the bank itself purchased the property for the sum of Rs.11,08,319/-. The sale in favour of the bank was confirmed on 1.11.2006 and the said order has attained finality. 2. After the sale was confirmed, the debtor passed away on 19.4.2009. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the debtor, mainly seeking a direction to the Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission to pass orders WPC No.22825/2011 2 on their application for re-conveyance of the property. 2. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. Sri.T.Sethumadhavan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent bank submitted that notwithstanding the confirmation of the sale, the bank is prepared to re-convey the property to the petitioners, in the event of the petitioners repaying the sum of Rs.11,08,319/- together with interest and that while quantifying the amount to be paid, the bank will give credit to the payment of Rs.2.50 lakhs made by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 29.8.2011. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners did not object to the said offer. In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction that in the event of the petitioners filing an appropriate representation before the Secretary of the first respondent bank within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and offering to pay the balance amount due as on the date of sale namely, Rs.11,08,319/- with future interest from 28.6.2005 and undertaking to pay the balance amount due in WPC No.22825/2011 3 lump after giving credit to the payment of Rs.2.50 lakhs made pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 29.8.2011, the bank shall consider the same and within two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation inform the petitioners in writing of the amount which they will have to pay for re- conveyance of the property and the time limit within which the amounts should be paid. Upon the petitioners depositing the amount demanded, the bank shall re-convey the property to the petitioners. Needless to say, the petitioners shall meet the expenses for such re-conveyance including the registration charges and the stamp duty, if any, payable on the deed of conveyance. It is clarified that if the petitioners fail to deposit the amount which they are called upon by the bank to deposit pursuant to this judgment within the time stipulated by the bank, this writ petition will stand dismissed and the bank will be free to take steps to obtain delivery of the property. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps