9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner had been involved in abkari business. He had incurred dues towards Abkari Workers Welfare Fund during the year 1995-96 to the tune of Rs. 1,37,088/- as can be seen from Ext.P2 information received by the petitioner from the Taluk Office, Mannarkkad. On an allegation that the petitioner was also liable to the Sales Tax Department to the tune of Rs. 1,71,062/- with interest, the respondents had invoked revenue recovery proceedings. The proceedings culminated in sale of 10 Acres of property belonging to the petitioner. Since there were no sufficient bidders, the property was taken over as a bought-in land on 25.10.2000. The auction sale procedure was completed on 20.03.2001. The petitioner had approached the authorities on 16.6.2001 requesting for return of the bought-in land. However, no further steps appears to have been taken for quite a long time. On 01.10.2011, the respondents issued Ext.P3 Government order wherein it was ordered that, if the petitioner pays the amounts due towards sales tax, Abkari Workers Welfare Fund, the interest due till date and the collection charges and other expenses, the bought-in land can be returned to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed not be returned to any person who is applying after five years. The fact that the cheque was returned is also admitted in the counter affidavit. 6. What transpires from the facts stated above is that, the State had conducted a revenue sale for recovery of amounts which were due towards Kerala Abkari Welfare Fund arrears and amounts which were not actually due towards sales tax arrears, clubbing both the amounts together as arrears due from the petitioner to the Government. In effect, what has been done is to take over 10 Acres of property towards liability of Rs. 1,37,088/- which occurred during the financial year 1995-96. At the time when the sale was conducted in the year 2000, what would have accrued is only the interest for four years on the sum of Rs. 1,37,088/-. Even though the petitioner had initiated steps for return of the bought-in land as early as on 15.06.2001, as admitted in Ext.P3, the actual amount due was informed to the petitioner only on 04.11.2016 as per Ext.P5. The only obvious conclusion possible is that there is material irregularity in the conduct of the sale, primarily since there is want of proper notice under Section 34 as also under Section 49(2)(iv) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit appeal No. 1019 of 2018, in support of her contentions. The Special Government Pleader also relied on the decision in Chandrasekharan (Supra). Apart from that, he also relied on the decisions in District Collector v. Subaida Beevi reported in [2010 (1) KLT 913] and the judgement of a learned Single judge in W.P.(C) No. 33704 of 2011, to contend that even though this Court has on earlier occasions directed re-conveyance of bought-in lands, the facts of the case on hand do not warrant the same, since even after providing an opportunity to the petitioner as per Ext.P3 as early as in 2011 to get re-conveyance, the petitioner did not take it. 9. In George Jacob (supra) the Court was concerned with the re-conveyance of 10.56 acres of rubber plantation, which was taken over as bought-in-land under Section 50 of the Revenue Recovery Act. In the said case the arrears was around Rs. 36 lakhs. The sale took place in 1995. In 2001, the revenue authorities valued the property at Rs. 8,44,800/- and credited the same to the defaulters account with effect from 24.8.95. In 1997, the property of the co-licensee was also brought to sale and a sum of Rs. 5,90,200/- was adjusted towards the very s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingle judge is sustained for a different reasoning, and, dismissed the appeal filed by the State. 11. In W.P.(C)No.33704 of 2011, revenue recovery was initiated for recovery of arrears due towards Abkari Workers Welfare Fund, Sales tax and Toddy Workers Welfare Fund. The demands from three requisitioning authorities were clubbed together and revenue sale was conducted. The sale conducted on 20.12.1999 in favour of the State was confirmed only on 18.8.2007. In the meanwhile, certain amounts had been remitted in 1999 and 2000 towards the dues. The sale was confirmed without noticing the payments. An application made for availing the Amnesty Scheme was rejected on the ground that sale has already taken place. The learned Single Judge relied on the judgement in Subaida Beevi(supra) and the judgment in Thirumalaiswamy M v. State of Kerala and others reported in [2012(2) KHC 402] and set aside the sale for the reason that the purchase ought to have been on behalf of the requisitioning authorities, that confirmation of sale was done after 7 years without noticing subsequent payments, and that there was no satisfactory evidence to hold that there was prior notice of sale. The petitioner b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appellant before the Division Bench had approached the Revenue Recovery Authority for the conveyance of bought-in-land. The revenue authorities directed him to remit market value for re-conveyance of the property. The learned Single Judge directed deposit of the market value, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within 6 months and further directed the revenue authority to re-convey the property on such remittance. The direction was challenged in appeal before the Division Bench. The appellant contended that the proceedings were initiated for sales tax arrears, the assessment of which was set aside in appeal and remanded for fresh consideration. The subsequent assessment was settled by the appellant under Amnesty Scheme by depositing the entire amount and re- conveyance was sought thereafter. It was a case where the appellant was still in occupation of the residential building since the Government had not taken any steps to take over the property. After going through the entire Revenue Recovery process initiated, on facts, the Division Bench found that the case did not warrant any revocation of the bought-in-land proceedings, but however invoking the equitable j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such requisitioning authorities and not on behalf of the State. A purchase made on behalf of the State is vitiated. 16. Applying the above principles to the case on hand, admittedly, the sale was conducted on the basis of a notice showing arrears of Abkari Workers Welfare Fund and Sales tax. It is later on admitted that there were no sales tax dues actually pending from the petitioner. That is to say, there was no proper notice as envisaged under Section 34 as also under Section 49(2)(iv) of the Revenue Recovery Act prior to the sale and the sale was for that very reason vitiated. It is admitted that the purchase was made on behalf of the Government and not on behalf of the requisitioning authority. On that ground also, the sale was vitiated. An application for re-conveyance of the bought-in land had been made within 3 months from the confirmation of the sale. It is also a fact that the Government decided in principle to return the bought-in land as per Exhibit P3. Even though Exhibit P3 was issued in 2011, admittedly, the actual amount of arrears was made known to the petitioner only as per Exhibit P5 on 4.11.2016. It is also admitted that on receipt of Exhibit P5, the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
