IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 31057 of 2008(V) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------- V.THIRUMULRAJ, S/O.VENKITASWAMI CHETTIAR 14, PONNAMBALAM STREET, BODINAIKANNOOR-626513 AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.33, MUTTUKKAD ESTATE, CHINNAKKANAL PO., IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVRENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PIANAVU, IDUKKI. 3. TALUK OFFICER, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK , IDUKKI. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHINNAKKANAL VILLAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31057 of 2008(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.05.1988 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19.12.1987 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE DATED 15.02.2007 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 08.02.2008 EXT.P4(a): COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHINNAKKANAL EXT.P4(b): LEGIBLE COPY OF EXT.P4 & P4(a) EXT.P4(b2): LEGIBLE COPY OF P4(a) EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.06.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.06.2004 IN W.P.(C) NO. 30719/2003 EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2006 IN W.P.(C) 20814/2003 -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 31057 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT 3.60 Acres of land belonging to the petitioner was proceeded against under Revenue recovery Act for the non payment of tax due under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act. The property was brought to sale and bid was settled in favour of the Government. Subsequently, the petitioner remitted the entire amount due and requested for its re-conveyance. It would appear from Exhibit P3 that he was called for hearing also. It is stated that subsequently also proceedings continued. However, no final decision in this matter has been taken. 2. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed Exhibit P5 representation to the first respondent, seeking for appropriate direction for re-conveyance of his land. On Exhibit P5 also no decision has been taken. 3. Petitioner has produced Exhibit P6 judgment rendered by this court, wherein orders have been passed for re- conveyance. W.P.(C) No. 31057 / 2008 2 4. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks an order directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P5. 5. As already stated that petitioner has been proceeded against tax liability and is land has been purchased by the government. Since, he sought its re-conveyance, it is appropriate that the first respondent takes a final decision on Exhibit P5. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks of production of copy of this judgment. 6. Before final orders are passed, petitioner shall also be given notice for hearing. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm W.P.(C) No. 31057 / 2008 3 The words “Subsequently, the petitioner remitted the entire amount due and requested for its re-conveyance” occurring as the 3rd sentence in paragraph 1 of the judgment dated 21/01/2009 in WP(C) No. 31057/2008(V) is corrected as “Subsequently”, the petitioner offered to remit the entire amount due and requested for its re conveyance” as per the order dated 19/02/2009 in I.A No.2084/2009. Registrar (Judicial)