IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 27057 of 2000(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.P.ABDULLAKUTTY, S/O. LATE ABDURAHIMANKUTTY, CHAKKIDINTO PARAKKAL, PUTHIYAKADAPPURAM (P.O.), VIA TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.CHADRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE FISHERIES DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PROJECT OFFICER, PACKAGE SCHEME (FISHERIES), TANUR 676 502. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.T.K.VIPIN DAS FOR R1 & R4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.45411/2000 IN OP. NO.27057/2000 DISMISSED 28.05.2009 SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT DT. 2.7.91 APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 1/98 WRITTEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN DECEMBER 1999 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 1.1.2000 SUBMITTED TO THE IST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.3261/S.5/2000/REVENUE DT. 28.1.2000 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.PRI 9/98. 99/MISC. DT. 31.8.2000 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- O.P. No.27057 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, 28th May 2009 JUDGMENT Ext.P5, which is a sale notice issued under section 49 of the Revenue Recovery Act, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, he is a fisherman and he along with certain other persons availed a fishing boat under hire purchase scheme of the Government. The petitioner was the leader of the group of persons who availed the boat. Boat bearing No.KLA 526 was availed on condition that the value of the boat Rs.1,55,870/- will be paid back in 8 years from 15.3.81. As per the conditions of the hire purchase agreement, the fish caught by the petitioner's group using the boat has to be entrusted with the 3rd respondent or his nominee and the said fish has to be sold in auction under his control and supervision. The petitioner is not entitled to sell the fish thus caught. Out of the sale proceeds, 30% of such sale proceeds O.P.27057/2000 -:2:- will be adjusted towards the cost of the boat. Out of the balance sale proceeds, the petitioner and his companions are entitled only to the amount after deducting the cost of the fuel and other incidental expenses in respect of the boat. It is the specific case of the petitioner that on 1.7.1991, due to heavy rain there was heavy flood and as a result of the natural calamity and due to uncontrollable gushing water in the river, certain boats including the petitioner's boat were washed away. Therefore, the instalments as per the agreement could not be paid in time. According to the petitioner, the Ist respondent, by order No.31/96 dated 10.11.96, has waived the interest and penal interest in respect of the Boats which had been lost in the natural calamity. Thus according to the petitioner, his group had paid a total sum of Rs.76,676/-till 1.7.91 whereas the total cost to be paid will come to Rs.1,55,870/- and no amount is due from the petitioner's group to the respondents. Therefore according to the petitioner, the present steps taken by O.P.27057/2000 -:3:- the respondents is illegal and he is not liable to pay any amount. Therefore, he approached this Court with this petition to quash Ext.P5 as well notice and all other steps taken pursuant to the revenue recovery proceedings. 3. Fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that revenue recovery steps were taken against the petitioner on the strength of requisition dated 28.4.98 received from the Director of Fisheries with letter No.K/Dis/D4 47001//98 13.11.98 of the District Collector, Malappuram and no objection was raised by the petitioner. So according to the counter, the liability is admitted by the petitioner. In support of the above contention, it is stated in the counter that the petitioner defaulted to pay the instalment as ordered and granted by the Government at the instance of the petitioner as per Order No.15195/S5/99 Rev. dated 26.2.99 permitting to remit the amount in 30 equal monthly instalment from 25.3.94. But according to the respondents, even though the petitioner had got the instalment facilities, he had O.P.27057/2000 -:4:- remitted only a sum of Rs.16500/- only up to 12th month of 1999 and no amount was remitted thereafter. The sale of the land was originally scheduled on 4.10.2000 but the sale could not be conducted on that date. In the meanwhile, the petitioner approached this Court by preferring this writ petition. In the counter affidavit it is specifically pleaded that Ext.P4 order was not issued in favour of the petitioner viz., C.P.Abdullakutty, s/o. late Abdurahimankutty. But Ext.P4 order was issued in favour of one C.P.Abdulla, S/o. Abdullakutty and the District Collector, Malappuram, as per letter No.D4 19373/2000 dated 8.6.2000 permitted to continue the revenue recovery proceeding against the defaulter. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader and also perused the available materials. 5. Going by the contentions raised and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the transaction between the petitioner and O.P.27057/2000 -:5:- the government was fully accepted and the amount of arrears quantified by the government was also not disputed by the petitioner. It is also relevant to note that the government has also permitted the petitioner to pay the amount by way of 30 instalments, but he had not complied with such benefit given. The petitioner miserably failed to point out any illegality or wrong with the proceedings adopted towards the realisation of the due amount Under the above facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- O.P.27057/2000 -:6:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.NO.27057 OF 2000 JUDGMENT Dated: 28.5.2009