IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 1832 of 2009 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6896/2009 Dated 16/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- K.C.PAULOSE, S/O.CHACKO, KIDANGEN HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON,AMICUS CURIAE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, BRANCH OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, ALUVA. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE, MALAYATTOOR. 6. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1,R4 & R5 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL R2 & R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.A.JAYASANKAR R6 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.V.NANDAGOPALA NAMBIAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1832 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT A.K. Basheer, J. Appellant had availed of a loan from the Kerala State Housing Board (respondent No.2 herein) way back in the year 1990. Since he committed default in repayment, recovery proceedings were initiated against him. However, the appellant has succeeded in frustrating the Board from effecting recovery thus far by resorting to some ingenious methods at various stages. He even managed to mislead this Court at one stage by informing that he would pay off the entire liability once he gets the retiral benefits which were due to him from his employer, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. But later, he conceded that though he received those benefits from the Corporation, he had failed to remit the same to the credit of the loan account as undertaken by him before this Court. We do not propose to advert to the chequered history of this litigation, particularly the dubious methods adopted by the appellant at various stages of the recovery proceedings at length, since the W.A.No.1832 of 2009 - 2 - learned Single Judge has dealt with all those aspects in great detail. 2. Having gone through the entire materials available on record and having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel whom we appointed on compassionate ground since the appellant was not in a position to do so, we are fully satisfied that no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment. 3. However, since it was brought to our notice that the total liability payable by the appellant to the Board as on today is in the region of Rs.4.5 lakhs and that the entire mortgaged property may not have to be sold to recover the debt, a proposal was made to see whether only a portion of the said property can be put to sale. This was only to ensure that the appellant does not lose the entire mortgaged property in this bargain. Therefore, we requested the learned Government Pleader to get instructions from the Revenue authorities and find out the feasibility of putting to sale only that portion of the property which would be sufficient to satisfy the demand of the Board. 4. Accordingly the Special Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Aluva has reported in his statement that only a portion of W.A.No.1832 of 2009 - 3 - the mortgaged property along with the incomplete shop building need be sold to realise the dues. 5. Admittedly, the appellant has mortgaged only ten cents of land which belongs to him. However, in view of the statement filed by the Special Tahsildar, we make it clear that the revenue sale shall be confined only to that portion of the property which would fetch the dues payable by the appellant to the Board. The revenue authorities shall ensure that only that portion of the property which will be sufficient to realise the debt shall be put to sale. This shall be done without any further delay on the strength of the revenue sale notice already published. With this modification in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal is dismissed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns