IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36647 of 2007(K)
1. N.C.THOMAS, S/O. CHACKO,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.),
3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :26/03/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 36647 of 2007
------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner submits that he had obtained a loan from
the Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. When default was
committed recovery proceedings were initiated and finally 46
cents of land situated in Survey Nos. 5/2 and 5/14 of
Manamangalam Village was brought for sale. There was no
bidders and therefore, the Government bought the land for a
nominal value.
2. According to the learned Government Pleader, the sale
was confirmed on 20/08/1988. Long thereafter, it would appear
that on 22/10/1994, the petitioner had submitted an application
for re-conveyance of the property to him offering to pay the
entire dues. On his aforesaid application, Exhibit P2 order was
issued only on 4/07/1996.
3. In the meantime, Government had issued Exhibit P1
dated 22/03/1996 directing that when requests for re-
conveyance are received in respect of bought- in -land after two
W.P.(C) No. 36647/2007
2
years of sale, re-conveyance will be allowed only on payment
of the market value. Even after making reference to Exhibit P1, in
Exhibit P2 the District Collector ordered that on the petitioner
paying the amount due, steps will be taken for re-conveyance of
the property, in accordance with the rules. The petitioner
submits that in pursuance of Exhibit P2, on 30/8/1996, he paid
the entire amount due on 3/08/1996 and Exhibit P3 is the receipt
of that payment. Thereafter, though the petitioner made
representations for re-conveyance of the property , there was no
response to anyone of those applications. It is in these
circumstance, this writ petition is filed praying that the
respondents be directed to re-convey his property situated in
Survey Nos.5/2 and 5/14 of Manamangalam Village to the
petitioner forthwith.
4. If I accept that Exhibit P1 is applicable to the
petitioner’s case, necessarily the petitioner will have to pay the
market value of the property. If it is otherwise, the petitioner has
to be held entitled for re-conveyance of the property.
5. Even according to the learned Government pleader,
W.P.(C) No. 36647/2007
3
though the sale was confirmed on 20/8/1988, the application of
the petitioner for re-conveyance of the property was received
only on 22/10/1994. This factual position is also evident from
Exhibit P2 order of the District Collector. It was apparently
reckoning his eligibility for re-conveyance, the District Collector
ordered payment of entire amount that was due for re-conveying
the property.
6. Irrespective of all these, the fact remains that within a
reasonable time of the application made by the petitioner, if an
order was passed by the respondents, the petitioner could have
got the property re-conveyed on remitting the entire amount due
from him. It is because order on his application was delayed by
the Respondents, that the petitioner has now become liable for
additional amounts. Therefore, orders on the application
submitted by the petitioner on 22/10/1994 cannot be influenced
by Exhibit P1, which came into existence subsequently. For this
reason, I am inclined to think that the claim of the petitioner
should be determined with reference to the position as on the
date of the application. When he made the application, his
W.P.(C) No. 36647/2007
4
obligation was only to pay the amount due and since it is evident
from Exhibit P3 that the amount due has been paid, the land
should be re-conveyed to the petitioner.
Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the
respondents 1 and 2 shall on the production of copy of this
judgment take steps for re-conveyance of the property of the
petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at
any rate within eight weeks of production of copy of this
judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
scm