IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 24714 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. R.PRASAD, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, ERUMAKKUZHY, NOORANADU P.O., MAVELIKKARA. 2. K.SUGATHAN, MULLIYIL VEEDU, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM,AVANAVANCHERRY VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKAL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONR OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES,THIRUVANANTHPAURAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 5. NALINAKSHAN, NALINALAYAM PUTHUKARI SARKARA, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM. 6. RADHAKRISHNAN, REGHU MANDIRAM, SARKARA, CHIRAYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.24714 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is inter alia to quash the sale conducted and stands confirmed with respect to immovable property pursuant to revenue recovery steps initiated. Earlier the writ petitioners have approached this court seeking to set aside the confirmation of sale made through Ext.P17 and P18. In Ext.P19 judgment this court observed that the remedy available to the petitioners is under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, which provides right of revision under Section 83. Hence the petitioners were relegated to pursue the remedy of revision. In order to facilitate the petitioners to pursue such remedy this court directed that further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P17 and P18 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks. The sale covered under Ext.P17 and P18 were conducted pursuant to revenue recovery steps for realisation of Sales Tax dues of a firm, M/s. Lakshmi Oil Mill, with respect to various years from 1987-88 to 1996-97, both under the KGST and CST Acts. It is submitted that in respect of W.P.(C).24714/09 2 the Tax dues, the assessing authority had now permitted the petitioners to settle the arrears by payment of the amount mentioned therein in installments, after eligible waiver of interest, under the provisions of Amnesty Scheme introduced by the State Government. The orders issued in this regard are Ext.P20 and P21. The petitioners are seeking directions from this court for setting aside the sale, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the amounts as covered under Ext.P20 and P21. 2. The Revenue Recovery sale was effected at a time when the Tax amounts were in default. The sale was conducted as per the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and it stands confirmed. Application for settlement of the arrears under the 'Amnesty Scheme' was submitted on the choice of the petitioners at their own risk with full knowledge about the sale. The assessing authority had permitted benefit under the Amnesty Scheme as evidenced by Ext.P20 and P21. Whether to comply with the orders permitting payment in installments as stipulated in Ext.P20 and P21, is a matter within the absolute discretion and choice of the defaulters. The benefit under the Amnesty Scheme could not be granted and was not granted subject to any qualifications or conditions. 3. It is evident that this court had already relegated the W.P.(C).24714/09 3 petitioners under Ext.P19 judgment to approach the revisional authority under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for getting the sale set aside, if they have got sufficient grounds. There is no evidence that any order has been issued by the revisional authority on any revision petition filed in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P19 Judgment. 4. Permission for payment of the amounts covered under the Amnesty Scheme cannot be allowed with a pre-condition stipulated in favour of the petitioners or with any assurance to the effect that the sale will be set aside on payment of the said amount. Both aspects are covered under different statutes coming within the jurisdiction of different authorities. As far as the question regarding setting aside the sale, it is a matter to be decided looking into various aspects including the rights of the auction purchaser of the property. Amnesty Scheme is a benefit of concession granted to those who are in arrears of tax amount. The sale which stands confirmed under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act cannot be set aside without recourse to the proper procedure contemplated under that statute merely because the defaulter has been permitted with a concession to pay off the liabilities under the Amnesty Scheme. In this case, if the petitioners so choose, it is for them to work out appropriate remedy under different statutes before the distinct authorities W.P.(C).24714/09 4 who are competent to deal with the matters separately. 5. Under these circumstances I do not think any relief which is sought for in this writ petition can be granted. Therefore the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb