IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11935 of 2008(U)
1. K.NATARAJAN,AGED 69 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER
... Respondent
2. THE ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM
4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
5. THE TAHSILDAR (RR) KOLLAM
6. ANILKUMAR,S/O. PRABHAKARAN
For Petitioner :SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/06/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 11935 of 2008
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated: JUNE 24, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a contractor and FL.1 licensee during the
year 1967-68 to 1970-71. Default was committed leading to
revenue recovery proceedings. That resulted in an auction held
on 26.3.2008 whereby the 6th respondent purchased certain
immovable properties of the petitioner for Rs.20 lakhs and had
deposited Rs.3 lakhs being the 15% of the auction amount.
Petitioner filed Ext.P3 objection invoking section 54 of the
Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and, contending that the said
objection is pending, this writ petition was filed challenging the
revenue recovery proceedings.
2. On 8.4.2008 this court passed an interim order staying
confirmation of the sale on condition that the petitioner remits
Rs.3 lakhs. Petitioner submits that for recovery of the amount
due from him, the respondent had already attached the rent of a
cashew factory that was leased out to the Kerala State Cashew
Development Corporation Ltd.. According to the petitioner,
under cover of Ext.P5 letter dated 15.4.2008, the Kerala State
Cashew Development Corporation had given a cheque to the 5th
WP(C) 11935/2008 2
respondent for an amount of Rs.1,33,494/-. Petitioner has also
paid an amount of Rs.1,66,506/- and thus, according to him, a
total amount of Rs.3 lakhs was paid in compliance with the
interim order.
3. Though the petitioner sought adjustment of the
payment made by the Kerala State Cashew Development
Corporation towards the Rs.3 lakhs payable under the order
dated 8.4.2008, that was declined by the 4th respondent by
Ext.P4 on the ground that though payment was made after the
order was passed, the cheque was of a date prior to the date of
the interim order.
4. While the above controversy was remaining unresolved,
Ext.P7 Amnesty Scheme was introduced by the respondents on
26.5.2008, in terms of which a defaulter like the petitioner can
get himself exonerated of the liability on payment of 75% of the
principal amount due. According to the petitioner, he applied
for availing of the benefit of Ext.P7 and by Ext.P9 issued by the
2nd respondent on 13.6.2008, he was informed of the acceptance
of his application. By this communication he was further asked
to remit Rs.4,33,085/- being the 75% of the total liability of
Rs.5,77,446/- for settlement of his liability.
5. Though the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging
WP(C) 11935/2008 3
the revenue recovery auction which resulted in the sale of his
immovable properties in favour of the 6th respondent, what is
now sought for by the petitioner is that the payment of Rs.3
lakhs already made by him may be adjusted towards the dues
under Ext.P7 Amnesty Scheme and he may be permitted to pay
the balance amount and thus be relieved of the liability.
6. As already noticed, it was the 6th respondent who was
the successful bidder in the revenue auction. Though notice has
been served on him, there is no appearance on his behalf.
7. As per Ext.P9, petitioner can get himself exonerated of
the liability if he pays a total amount of Rs.4,33,085/-. Thus by
Ext.P9 the entitlement of the petitioner of the benefit of Ext.P7
Amnesty Scheme has been accepted by the 2nd respondent. It is
not in controversy that towards the very liability, already Rs.3
lakhs has been paid. Since the total liability of the petitioner as
indicated in Ext.P9 is only Rs.4,33,085/-, what remains unpaid by
the petitioner is only Rs.1,33,085/-. Now that the petitioner has
already paid Rs.3 lakhs as above, I feel that once the petitioner
pays the balance due, the petitioner should be relieved of his
liability.
8. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of directing
that if the petitioner makes payment of the balance sum of
WP(C) 11935/2008 4
Rs.1,33,085/- before 28.6.2008 on which date15 days of Ext.P9
expires, the petitioner should be relieved of his liability.
9. Though the learned Government Pleader has raised a
plea that since the sale was conducted by the revenue recovery
authorities and that the sale was settled in favour of the 6th
respondent, the petitioner is liable to pay collection charges. I
am not prepared to accept that plea. This is for the reason that
in terms of Ext.P7, once an offer is accepted and payments are
made, if any revenue recovery action is already initiated, the
same is to be withdrawn and collection charges are to be waived.
In view of this, it cannot be claimed by the State that they are
entitled to collection charges once the defaulter is given the
benefit of Ext.P7 and payment is made thereunder.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if
the petitioner makes payment of the balance amount of
Rs.1,33,085/- before 28.6.2008, the petitioner will be relieved of
his liability and as a necessary consequence thereof, the sale
conducted on 26.3.2008 will stand set aside.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
mt/-