IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 WA.No. 2053 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9624/2009 Dated 27/05/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WP(C): --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENEREL BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.H.HANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN WP(C): ------------------------------------------------------------- R. PRAKASH, S/O. V.RAGHAVAN, KONDURAZHIKATHU HOUSE, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SASI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.A.NO:2053 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th September, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The writ appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the revenue authorities to reconvey the property to the petitioner based on Ext.P3 order issued by the Government on 3/1/2006. We have heard the Govt. Pleader for the appellant State and counsel appearing for the respondent. The facts leading to the controversy are the following: 2. Respondent's father was an abkari contractor who was in arrears of abkari dues to the extent of Rs.16,228/- for the abkari year 1969-70. Recovery proceedings lead to attachment and sale of defaulter's property which is 22 cents of village land. Since there was no buyer for the property Government purchased the property in the last auction held on 28/12/1978 for 10 paise. The sale was confirmed on 9/5/1980. However, the defaulter's case was that property was never taken over and the treatment of the land as bought-in-land was only for the purposes of Government records. The Government's case is that usufructs were sold in 1994 and W.A.2053/2009 2 1995 for a total amount of Rs.1,000/- obtained in all auctions together. Defaulter is dead and the respondent is the son of deceased defaulter who is stated to be residing in the property. Govt. Pleader submitted that the residential house and the adjoining property was excluded and the balance land around it was auctioned which was purchased by the Government under Section 50 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Admittedly after 2002 this Court accepted the claim of the respondent that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property and granted stay against auctioning of usufructs. 3. Under the amnesty scheme introduced by the Government the respondent cleared the entire arrears with interest in terms of the scheme and the total amount paid on 14/8/2000 was Rs.27,457/-. After liability was settled the Excise Commissioner requested the revenue authorities to withdraw the recovery proceedings. However, there was no order directing reconveyance of property already purchased by the Government in auction sale under Section 50 of the Act. Therefore, respondent approached the Government with a petition to reconvey the property. The W.A.2053/2009 3 Government vide Ext.P3 which is a detailed order directed the District Collector to reconvey the property. 4. The writ petition was filed for a direction to the revenue authorities to comply with Ext.P3 order issued by the Government that is to reconvey the property which was allowed by the learned Single Judge against which State has filed this appeal. 5. During hearing Govt. Pleader produced judgment in W.A.1742/2009 wherein this Court held that settlement of liability under the amnesty scheme and withdrawal of revenue proceedings does not automatically lead to defaulter's entitlement for reconveyance of property sold in recovery where the Government has purchased the property. Counsel appearing for the respondent however submitted that the facts in this case are unique in as much as respondent is only pressing for enforcement of Government's own order. 6. We find force in this contention because neither before the learned Single Judge nor before us appellant has produced any document to show that Ext.P3 is recalled or modified by the Government. So much so we do not find anything wrong in the respondent pressing for enforcement of Government order. We W.A.2053/2009 4 feel that the writ appeal filed by the State itself is not maintainable because State cannot challenge its own order. Writ appeal is therefore dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj W.A.2053/2009 5