IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 11935 of 2008(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- K.NATARAJAN,AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. KUNJIRAMAN (LATE) KIZHAKKEVILA MEKKU VEETTIL, MANGAD, KOLLAM-11 BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANATNTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 5. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KOLLAM. 6. ANILKUMAR,S/O. PRABHAKARAN, SIVAGANGA, T.V.JUNCTION, MANGADU P.O., KOLLAM-15. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJKUMAR - R1 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.11935/2008 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE R.R. NOTICE DTD. 15/02/2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT TAKEN DOWN BY WRITING BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 2/04/2008 SENT TO ALL THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/05/2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 15/04/2008 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DTD. 26/05/2008 SUBMITTED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS) NO.108/08/TD DTD. 26/05/2008 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 7/06/2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.Q6-5114/68 DTD. 13/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 11935 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 24, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was a contractor and FL.1 licensee during the year 1967-68 to 1970-71. Default was committed leading to revenue recovery proceedings. That resulted in an auction held on 26.3.2008 whereby the 6th respondent purchased certain immovable properties of the petitioner for Rs.20 lakhs and had deposited Rs.3 lakhs being the 15% of the auction amount. Petitioner filed Ext.P3 objection invoking section 54 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and, contending that the said objection is pending, this writ petition was filed challenging the revenue recovery proceedings. 2. On 8.4.2008 this court passed an interim order staying confirmation of the sale on condition that the petitioner remits Rs.3 lakhs. Petitioner submits that for recovery of the amount due from him, the respondent had already attached the rent of a cashew factory that was leased out to the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd.. According to the petitioner, under cover of Ext.P5 letter dated 15.4.2008, the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation had given a cheque to the 5th WP(C) 11935/2008 2 respondent for an amount of Rs.1,33,494/-. Petitioner has also paid an amount of Rs.1,66,506/- and thus, according to him, a total amount of Rs.3 lakhs was paid in compliance with the interim order. 3. Though the petitioner sought adjustment of the payment made by the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation towards the Rs.3 lakhs payable under the order dated 8.4.2008, that was declined by the 4th respondent by Ext.P4 on the ground that though payment was made after the order was passed, the cheque was of a date prior to the date of the interim order. 4. While the above controversy was remaining unresolved, Ext.P7 Amnesty Scheme was introduced by the respondents on 26.5.2008, in terms of which a defaulter like the petitioner can get himself exonerated of the liability on payment of 75% of the principal amount due. According to the petitioner, he applied for availing of the benefit of Ext.P7 and by Ext.P9 issued by the 2nd respondent on 13.6.2008, he was informed of the acceptance of his application. By this communication he was further asked to remit Rs.4,33,085/- being the 75% of the total liability of Rs.5,77,446/- for settlement of his liability. 5. Though the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging WP(C) 11935/2008 3 the revenue recovery auction which resulted in the sale of his immovable properties in favour of the 6th respondent, what is now sought for by the petitioner is that the payment of Rs.3 lakhs already made by him may be adjusted towards the dues under Ext.P7 Amnesty Scheme and he may be permitted to pay the balance amount and thus be relieved of the liability. 6. As already noticed, it was the 6th respondent who was the successful bidder in the revenue auction. Though notice has been served on him, there is no appearance on his behalf. 7. As per Ext.P9, petitioner can get himself exonerated of the liability if he pays a total amount of Rs.4,33,085/-. Thus by Ext.P9 the entitlement of the petitioner of the benefit of Ext.P7 Amnesty Scheme has been accepted by the 2nd respondent. It is not in controversy that towards the very liability, already Rs.3 lakhs has been paid. Since the total liability of the petitioner as indicated in Ext.P9 is only Rs.4,33,085/-, what remains unpaid by the petitioner is only Rs.1,33,085/-. Now that the petitioner has already paid Rs.3 lakhs as above, I feel that once the petitioner pays the balance due, the petitioner should be relieved of his liability. 8. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner makes payment of the balance sum of WP(C) 11935/2008 4 Rs.1,33,085/- before 28.6.2008 on which date15 days of Ext.P9 expires, the petitioner should be relieved of his liability. 9. Though the learned Government Pleader has raised a plea that since the sale was conducted by the revenue recovery authorities and that the sale was settled in favour of the 6th respondent, the petitioner is liable to pay collection charges. I am not prepared to accept that plea. This is for the reason that in terms of Ext.P7, once an offer is accepted and payments are made, if any revenue recovery action is already initiated, the same is to be withdrawn and collection charges are to be waived. In view of this, it cannot be claimed by the State that they are entitled to collection charges once the defaulter is given the benefit of Ext.P7 and payment is made thereunder. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner makes payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,33,085/- before 28.6.2008, the petitioner will be relieved of his liability and as a necessary consequence thereof, the sale conducted on 26.3.2008 will stand set aside. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-