IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 4579 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.NEELA, D/O.KARUNA KUMARI, AGED 46 RESIDING AT 'REVATHY', AYIROOPPARA VILLAGE, AYIROOPPARA MURI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), PWD SOUTHERN CIRCLE, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD), KSTP DIVISION KOTTARAKKARA DIVISION, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT, SURVEY AND LAND RECORD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. 6. SURENDRAN NAIR, S/O. MADHAVAN PILLA, SREE RAGAM, CHEMPAZHATHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. MOHANAKUMAR, S/O. MADHAVAN PILLA, RAGAMALIKA, CHEMPAZHATHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. MICHAEL, S/O. GEORGE, SAJAN BHAVAN, POTHANCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. PRASANNAN, S/O. KRISHNAPANICKER, THUSHRA, POTHENCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (ADDL. RESPONDENTS R6 TO R9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO.7639/2010 DATED 17-6-2010. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1 TO R5. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 14-8-2000 REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. P2: TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10-1-2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PROCEEDIGNS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29-6-2005. P4: TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICES UDNER SECTION 7 AND 34 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. P5: TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P6: TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15-1-2010. P7: TRUE PHOTO OCOPY OF THE PLAINT FIELD BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AS O.S. NO.977/2005. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 4579 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the owner of 5.16 Ares of property comprised in Survey No.2446/2 and 2447/35, corresponding to Re-Survey No.1/12-2 in Block No.13 of Ayiroorppara Vilalge. The petitioner got title over the property by virtue of Ext.P1 settlement deed. Through Ext.P2 notice issued under section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the petitioner was intimated that an extent of 61 Sq. mtrs.; out of the said property is intended to be acquired for the public purpose of widening of M.C.Road. After survey and demarcation of the property and after scrutiny of title of the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 had arrived at an agreement with the petitioner for purchase of the above said property for a land value at the rate of Rs.3,70,644.92 per Are. Accordingly, the petitioner was given land value to the extent of Rs.2,26,093 for 61 sq. mtrs. and a sum of Rs.24,114/- towards value of the compound wall. After W.P.(C) No. 4579/2010 2 deducting income tax, a total amount of Rs.2,25,186/- was paid as consideration of the land. Since there existed a mortgage with respect to the property, the payment was effected directly to the Co-operative Bank for redemption of the mortgage. The petitioner had executed sale deed, which was registered as a Document No.2130/2005 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Pothencode. 2. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued a proceeding as per Ext.P3 stating that additional respondents 6 to 9 had submitted a complaint to the effect that they have got possessory rights over the 61 sq. mtrs. of property which was purchased from the petitioner. It is stated that on the basis of an inspection conducted by the 3rd respondent it was revealed that the said persons were in possession of different extents within the said property of 61 sq. mtrs. and that the petitioner was having possession only with respect to an extent of 15 Sq. mtrs. and hence she was entitled only for payment of a sum of Rs.59,642. In the said notice it is stated that the petitioner is liable for W.P.(C) No. 4579/2010 3 repayment of an amount of Rs.1,69,584/- and she was requested to remit the amount within three days from the date of receipt of notice, otherwise it was threatened recovery steps will be initiated. It is also mentioned that necessary steps will be taken for effecting correction in the sale deed. 3. Pursuant to Ext.P3 notice, revenue recovery steps were initiated and Ext.P4 notice was issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,69,584/- along with collection charges. The petitioner objected to the action by submitting Ext.P5 before the 4th respondent. But steps were pursued and Ext.P6 notice under section 36 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was issued intimating about attachment of the property in question. Hence the writ petition was filed challenging the revenue recovery steps as well as Ext.P6 proceedings. 4. It is stated that the petitioner filed a suit for injunction against respondents restraining them from encroaching upon the remaining extent of land, but the suit W.P.(C) No. 4579/2010 4 was subsequently dismissed for default. According to the petitioner, the revenue recovery steps initiated is totally without jurisdiction and the same is highly improper and unsustainable. The amount paid to the petitioner is for consideration of the property on the basis of which the sale deed was executed. It is stated that respondents 1 and 2 had agreed for purchase of the land only after proper scrutiny of the title deeds and other documents and only after being convinced about the marketable title of the property, and also about the possession of the property. It is contended that the additional respondents 6 to 9 had no manner of right or authority over the property and the findings in Ext.P3 were totally baseless and unsustainable. 5. Even though notice issued from this Court was served on respondents 6 and 7 nobody entered appearance. Service to respondents 8 and 9 were not complete. But I am inclined to dispose of the case since I am only proposeing to to remit the matter for fresh disposal by the respondent concerned. W.P.(C) No. 4579/2010 5 6. From Ext.P3 it is evident that such a proceedings was initiated only on the basis of some complaint alleged to have received from respondent 6 to 9, claiming possessory right over the property in question. A copy of such complaint is not forthcoming. In a statement filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent it is mentioned that respondent 6 to 9 had represented that they have got right over a portion of the property and on enquiry it was found that the petitioner was having possession only on an extent of 15 sq. mtrs. and the remaining extent of 46 sq. mtrs. belongs to three others. 7. It is not evident either from the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent or from the statement filed before this Court, as to what is the basis of the claim of respondents 6 to 9. It seems that they have not produced any document in support of their claim. Further it is not evident as to whether such persons have got any title over the property or any documents to prove the alleged possession. It is also pertinent to note that before issuing Ext.P3 proceedings, the petitioner was not given any notice W.P.(C) No. 4579/2010 6 against the proposed action to realize the alleged excess amount, and no opportunity was afforded either to raise objections or for a personal hearing. 8. Under the above mentioned circumstances, it is clear and evident that Ext.P3 proceedings was issued in total violation of principles of natural justice. It is all the more evident that no adjudication was conducted by any competent authority before taking a decision to recover the amount from the petitioner. The liability in this regard was not fixed in any legally acceptable manner. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that recovery steps initiated against the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable. 9. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P3 proceedings as well as the consequent recovery steps initiated on the basis of Exts.P4 & P6 are hereby quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to refer the matter pertaining to the alleged complaint of respondents 6 to 9 for a proper decision to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent will examine as to whether those respondents W.P.(C) No. 4579/2010 7 have got any legal rights or title on any portion of the property purchased from the petitioner, which will entitle them to get any portion of the value of the property in question. A decision in this regard shall be taken after conducting a proper enquiry after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as well as to respondents 6 to 9. Needless to say that the 1st respondent will be at liberty to get proper report in this regard from the revenue authorities concerned and if necessary to conduct physical inspection, if it is found to be helpful in deciding the issue. 10. The 3rd respondent is directed to refer the matter to the 1st respondent as per the above directions, without any further delay, at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon receipt of such reference, the 1st respondent shall take a decision as early as possible, at any rate within 3 months from the date of receipt of such reference. 11. It is made clear that recovery steps if any against the petitioner can be initiated only on the basis of outcome W.P.(C) No. 4579/2010 8 of the decision which will be taken by the 1st respondent in compliance with the above directions. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.