IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 36647 of 2007(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.C.THOMAS, S/O. CHACKO, NELLIKKAMALAYIL HOUSE, P.O.SASTHAMANGALAM, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. MR.ANIL SIVARAMAN, MR.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), THRISSUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. M.A. ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36647/2007-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 22/03/1996. EXT.P.1.A: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE R.2. DTD. 04/07/1996. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 04/07/1996. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 03/08/96. EXT.P.3.A: COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE ADALATH DTD. 30/07/1999. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 28/11/2007. EXT.P.5.A: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 28/11/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 36647 of 2007 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he had obtained a loan from the Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. When default was committed recovery proceedings were initiated and finally 46 cents of land situated in Survey Nos. 5/2 and 5/14 of Manamangalam Village was brought for sale. There was no bidders and therefore, the Government bought the land for a nominal value. 2. According to the learned Government Pleader, the sale was confirmed on 20/08/1988. Long thereafter, it would appear that on 22/10/1994, the petitioner had submitted an application for re-conveyance of the property to him offering to pay the entire dues. On his aforesaid application, Exhibit P2 order was issued only on 4/07/1996. 3. In the meantime, Government had issued Exhibit P1 dated 22/03/1996 directing that when requests for re- conveyance are received in respect of bought- in -land after two W.P.(C) No. 36647/2007 2 years of sale, re-conveyance will be allowed only on payment of the market value. Even after making reference to Exhibit P1, in Exhibit P2 the District Collector ordered that on the petitioner paying the amount due, steps will be taken for re-conveyance of the property, in accordance with the rules. The petitioner submits that in pursuance of Exhibit P2, on 30/8/1996, he paid the entire amount due on 3/08/1996 and Exhibit P3 is the receipt of that payment. Thereafter, though the petitioner made representations for re-conveyance of the property , there was no response to anyone of those applications. It is in these circumstance, this writ petition is filed praying that the respondents be directed to re-convey his property situated in Survey Nos.5/2 and 5/14 of Manamangalam Village to the petitioner forthwith. 4. If I accept that Exhibit P1 is applicable to the petitioner's case, necessarily the petitioner will have to pay the market value of the property. If it is otherwise, the petitioner has to be held entitled for re-conveyance of the property. 5. Even according to the learned Government pleader, W.P.(C) No. 36647/2007 3 though the sale was confirmed on 20/8/1988, the application of the petitioner for re-conveyance of the property was received only on 22/10/1994. This factual position is also evident from Exhibit P2 order of the District Collector. It was apparently reckoning his eligibility for re-conveyance, the District Collector ordered payment of entire amount that was due for re-conveying the property. 6. Irrespective of all these, the fact remains that within a reasonable time of the application made by the petitioner, if an order was passed by the respondents, the petitioner could have got the property re-conveyed on remitting the entire amount due from him. It is because order on his application was delayed by the Respondents, that the petitioner has now become liable for additional amounts. Therefore, orders on the application submitted by the petitioner on 22/10/1994 cannot be influenced by Exhibit P1, which came into existence subsequently. For this reason, I am inclined to think that the claim of the petitioner should be determined with reference to the position as on the date of the application. When he made the application, his W.P.(C) No. 36647/2007 4 obligation was only to pay the amount due and since it is evident from Exhibit P3 that the amount due has been paid, the land should be re-conveyed to the petitioner. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the respondents 1 and 2 shall on the production of copy of this judgment take steps for re-conveyance of the property of the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within eight weeks of production of copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm