IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 24615 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PRASANTH N., SUDARSANA, PULIYANOOR, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, REVENUE (S), GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL, PALA. 4. C.K.JAYARAJAN, CHUNDACKATTU HOUSE, LALAM VILLAGE, PALA P.O., MEENATHIL TALUK. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ WP(C).No. 24615 of 2009(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF SALE DEED NO.733/1/02 DATED 11.04.2002 OF THE MEENACHIL S.R.O. P2. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA DATED 14.01.2003. P3. COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30.03.2004. P4. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.08.2004. P5. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01.11.2004. P6. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR REVENUE DATED 05.03.2005. P7. COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.11.2005. P8. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07.02.2006. P9. COPY OF THE RECIEPT NO.95 DATED 09.05.2006 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P10. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D2 4373/03. P11. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.06.2006. P12. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 16.10.2008. P13. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.10.2008. P14. COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C) No.11369/07 DATED 05.12.2008. P15. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1355/2007/REV. DATED 27.04.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 24615 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P15 order of the 1st respondent, wherein his request for re-conveyance of 1.59 Ares (4 cents) of properly comprised in survey No.23/38/2 of Block No.80 in Lalalam Village, is rejected. The property in question was proceeded against under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, towards realisation of Rs.26,700/-, being the amount defaulted payment by the 4th respondent, which was due towards Motor Vehicle Tax. According to the petitioner the property was purchased by him on 11.04.2002, by virtue of Sale Deed registered as document No.733/1/02 of the Sub Registrar Office, Meenachil. When recovery notice was received the petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs.21,124/-. But since the entire balance due was not paid, and since there was no bidder available when the property W.P.(C)No. 24615 of 2009 -2- was put in auction, the Government purchased the property for Re.1/- on 19.11.2002, as per the provisions of Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. When mutation in the revenue records sought for by the petitioner was refused, the petitioner had approached the Government. The Government have issued Ext.P8 letter stating that the property can be re-conveyed only on the defaulter making payment of the entire arrears. However pursuant to Ext.P8 the petitioner had effected payment of the entire balance of Rs.5,576/- as evidenced by Ext.P9 receipt. Thereafter he submitted Ext.P11 representation before the 1st respondent requesting for re-conveyance of the property into his name. On receipt of Ext.P11 the petitioner was requested to make payment of a further sum of Rs.7,882/- towards balance due and the petitioner had remitted the said amount also, as evidenced by Ext.P12. Since no re-conveyance in favour of the petitioner was effected, the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion. In that Writ Petition the 4th respondent had conceded that he is not opposing W.P.(C)No. 24615 of 2009 -3- granting of re-conveyance in favour of the petitioner. On behalf of the Government it was submitted before this court that the re-conveyance was refused only because at a point of time the 4th respondent had submitted an application for re-conveyance of the property into his name. But the 4th respondent submitted before this court that he is not pressing the application for re-conveyance and he has no objection effecting re-conveyance in favour of the petitioner. In that judgment (Ext.P14) this court directed the 1st respondent to take a decision in the matter, after considering all the aspects. 2. Ext.P15 is the order passed by the 1st respondent in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P14. In Ext.P15 the 1st respondent observed that the purchase of the property by the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P1 Deed was illegal in view of Section 44 (1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and therefore re-conveyance of the land in favour of the petitioner can be effected only if Ext.P1 Deed is cancelled. It is observed in Ext.P15, that the 4th W.P.(C)No. 24615 of 2009 -4- respondent, had submitted a further letter of consent before the 1st respondent, expressing his willingness to effect re- conveyance into the name of the petitioner. According to the petitioner cancellation of the conveyance effected through Ext.P1 deed is not possible, and is not necessary. The insistence for cancellation of Ext.P1 document for effecting re-conveyance is unsustainable, is the contention. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. It is evident that the property was transferred into the name of the petitioner after initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. As per Section 44 (1) of the Act any engagement entered into by the defaulter with anyone in respect of any immovable property after the service of the written demand on him shall not be binding upon the Government. It is true that for realisation of the amount sought to be recovered, the Government can proceed against the property irrespective of any such conveyance W.P.(C)No. 24615 of 2009 -5- made. But that doesn't mean that such conveyance will become 'ipso facto' nullified, even after the recovery proceedings is over and the Government have realised the entire amount. By going through provisions in Section 44 (1) it only provides that the Government is not bound by any engagement entered during pendency of the proceedings and inspite of such engagements a property can be proceeded against. In this case even after the property was purchased by the Government for Rs.1/- the petitioner was permitted to remit the balance amount due, on the basis of specific request made in this regard, as evidenced from Exts.P12 & P13. If the Government have realised the entire amount, it is for the Government to decide whether re- conveyance can be allowed or not, after cancelling the purchase in favour of the Government under Section 50 of the Act. 4. In this case the Government have expressed in Ext.P15 and even in previous proceedings that the re- conveyance can be effected since the amount has already W.P.(C)No. 24615 of 2009 -6- been realised. The only objection raised against the re- conveyance is that Ext.P1 Deed has to be cancelled, based on the provisions in Section 44 (1). But on going through the said provision I am of the opinion that since Ext.P1 Deed doesn't stand nullified in the eye of law, such an insistence for cancellation of that Deed, is at all not necessary. With respect to the rights and claims of the 4th respondent it is evident from the repeated undertakings made by the 4th respondent before this court as well as before the 1st respondent that, he had no objection in effecting re- conveyance of the property to the petitioner. In the present Writ Petition eventhoguh notice was issued to the 4th respondent he has not chosen to appear before this court. Therefore it is evident that 4th respondent has no objection in effecting re-conveyance in the name of the petitioner. In fact on executing Ext.P1 Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner, the 4th respondent had relinquished all rights and interest on the property. I do not find any valid objection for cancelling the purchase effected in favour of the W.P.(C)No. 24615 of 2009 -7- Government and in releasing the property from the status of bought-in-land. 5. Therefore Ext.P15 is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to take necessary steps for cancellation of the purchase made in favour of the Government and for re-conveyance of the land in question in favour of the petitioner as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/