IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 21438 of 2011(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : ------------------------ 1. SUSAMMA JOY, W/O.LATE JOY, EDATTU HOUSE, VELLAPPADU KARA, PALA POST, KOTTAYAM DT. 2. MANU JOY, S/O.LATE JOY, DO. DO. 3. REMYA S. JOY, D/O. DO. REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF 2 & 3 SUSAMMA JOY. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J. VATTAKUZHY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR KOTTAYAM-682001. R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 21438 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1. COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 23.9.2010. EXT. P2. COPY OF ORDER DATED 7-4-2011. EXT. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.2.2006. EXT. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 25848 OF 2007 DATED 24.9.2007. EXT. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2008 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21438 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a defaulter in payment of contributions under the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act. The respondents initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act and invoking Section 50(2) of the Act, the Government purchased the property for `.1. That is under challenge in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in District Collector v. Subaida Beevi [2010(1) KLT 913], the Government cannot purchase the land for recovery of arrears of contributions under the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act and if at all only the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board can do the same. In the above circumstances, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “[a] call for the records leading up to Ext.P5 and to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext.P2. [b] declare that the sale and the confirmation of the property covered by document No.6 of 1992 having an extent of 2.43 Ares of and in Sy. No.745/2/1 corresponding to Block No.18, R.S.No.21/2 of Lalam W.P.(C)No.21438/11 2 Village is void in law. [c] issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order commanding respondents 1 to 3 to take steps to accept the amounts offered by the petitioners on behalf of their predecessor in interest towards arrears payable by him to TWWF and execute a deed of reconveyance of the property without further delay.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. In view of the decision of the Subaida Beevi's case (supra) clearly the purchase of the land by the Government under Section 50(2) of the Act is unsustainable. Accordingly, proceedings under Section 50(2) of the Act is quashed. If the petitioners pay the entire amount due including collection charges within three months, the State shall reconvey the property purchased under Section 50(2) of the Act to the petitioners or their nominees within one month from the date of payment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.21438/11 3 W.P.(C)No.21438/11 4