IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1832 of 2009()
1. K.C.PAULOSE, S/O.CHACKO,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
4. THE TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY,
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR.
6. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
For Petitioner :SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :28/10/2009
O R D E R
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