Loading...

Prasanth N. vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Prasanth N. vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 11369 of 2007(C)


1. PRASANTH N., S/O. O.K.NANDAKUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. TAHSILDAR,

4. C.K.JAYARAJAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH

                For Respondent  :SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :05/12/2008

 O R D E R
                         K.M. JOSEPH, J.

           ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                W.P.(C) No. 11369 OF 2007 C
           ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
           Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008

                         J U D G M E N T

Petitioner purchased, vide Ext.P1, an extent of 4

cents of land from the 4th respondent and his mother on

11.4.2002. The 4th respondent was a defaulter of motor vehicle

tax and the 3rd respondent issued notices under sections 7 and

34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. As there was no

bidders, the property was bid for Re.1/- and the sale was

confirmed and the 3rd respondent was directed to assume

possession vide Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, he was

unaware of the attachment and sale. He filed Ext.P3 petition

dated 30.3.2004 expressing his willingness to clear the arrears

and requesting for reconveyance of the property. Thereafter, the

petitioner made other representations and still later, by Ext.P8

dated 7.2.2006, the petitioner was informed that the

reconveyance of the property can be considered on cancellation

of the document in his favour and on payment of the entire

amount due. The 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to remit

WPC.11369/07
: 2 :

the arrear amount of Rs.5,576/-. The petitioner paid Rs.5,576/-

vide Ext.P10 receipt. Then, the petitioner approached the Sub

Registrar for cancellation of Ext.P1 document as directed in Ext.P8

but he refused to do so and the petitioner approached the 1st

respondent for an appropriate direction to the 3rd respondent by

Ext.P11 representation. It is the case of the petitioner that the

petitioner has cleared all the arrears. He also relies on Ext.P12

which is stated to be an order passed by the 1st respondent in

similar circumstance. A counter affidavit is filed to which a reply

affidavit is also filed.

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for the 4th respondent and learned Government Pleader.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that in the

counter affidavit filed it is pointed out that some more amount

needs to be paid. He also points out Ext.P13 certificate issued by

the Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, Pala, would show that the

petitioner had cleared the entire amount due. As regards the

condition in Ext.P8 is concerned, it is pointed out that it is not

possible to get the certificate. It is further contended that the

WPC.11369/07
: 3 :

condition is incorporated because the 4th respondent has also

made an application. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent

would submit that the 4th respondent had at one point of time filed

an application seeking reconveyance. But, he is not now opposing

to grant reconveyance in favour of the petitioner. Learned

Government Pleader would submit that going by the reasons

stated in Ext.P8, it is because there was an application filed by the

4th respondent that the condition relating to cancellation of the

document was insisted. He further submits that Ext.P1 being after

arrears, and section 44 is attracted, the condition was

incorporated. The petitioner has admittedly not complied fully with

the conditions in Ext.P8. Of course, he would point out that the

petitioner is having only 4 cents vide Ext.P1. In view of the fact

that the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that he is

not pressing the application for reconveyance and he has no

objection in reconveyance being granted to the petitioner, writ

petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take a

decision in the matter within six weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment. It is for the 1st respondent to consider the

WPC.11369/07
: 4 :

effect of the petitioner not complying with the condition mentioned

in Ext.P8 that there must be cancellation of Ext.P1 sale deed also.

Sd/-

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information