TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh 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. Apart from the fact that the sale has to be held to be invalid since the same has been completed without following the procedure prescribed by law, even on the principles of equity, it is a case coming within the remedy of rescission - While holding that the sale is vitiated, it cannot be forgotten that the petitioner has liabilities to the Government. In my view, equity requires that the petitioner is directed to pay the amount of ₹ 5,54,045/- along with simple interest at the rate of 6% from 4.11.2016 to 29.8.2019, and that on receipt of the same the respondents return possession of the land taken possession as bought-in land from the petitioner. It is declared that the proceedings under Section 50(2), which culminated in the taking over of the petitioner's lands as bought-in-land on behalf of the State is vitiated - respondents are directed to restore the lands to the petitioner after receiving a sum of ₹ 5,54,045/- along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 4.11.2016 to 29.8.2019 - petition dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sildar attached to the Taluk Office, Mannarkkad, by Ext.P2 dated 23.4.2012, informed the petitioner that the principal amount and interest due towards the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund was ₹ 1,37,088/- and ₹ 3,37,452/- respectively and that the principal amount and interest due towards the sale tax was ₹ 1,71,062/- and ₹ 4,90,157/- in the Mannarkkad Division and ₹ 85,292/- and ₹ 4,265/- in the Ottappalam Division respectively. Ext.P2 also shows that a sum of more than ₹ 2 lakhs was due towards further interest. According to the petitioner, the amounts shown in Ext.P2 were not correct. 3. The Welfare Fund Inspector of the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board had by Ext.P1 letter dated 27.9.2016 informed the petitioner that the amount due towards the fund as on that date was ₹ 10,18,087/-. The petitioner requested the authorities to inform the correct amount, since according to him the amounts stated in Ext.P1 was also wrong. Thereafter by Ext.P5 letter dated 4.11.2016, the Welfare Fund Inspector informed the petitioner that the amount due towards the fund along with interest was only ₹ 5,54,045/-. 4. The petitioner has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notice is incorrect and it takes in amounts which are not actually due. 7. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P1 which quantified the amount due at more than ₹ 10 lakhs, for a direction to deduct the amounts received in auction of the usufructs of the quantity as seen in Ext.P4 of the actual amount due from the petitioner, for a direction to the respondents to charge only a reasonable interest on the amount of ₹ 1,37,088/- which was due in 1995-96, for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to amounts collected from auction of the usufructs as detailed in Ext.P4 and for other reliefs. Later, by way of an amendment of the writ petition, the petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the 2nd respondent to return an extent of 10 acres of property situated in Sholayur village in Sy.No.1474/2, which had been taken over as bought-in land on 25.10.2000, after accepting ₹ 5,81,000/- towards the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund dues. After the issuance of Ext.P5, the petitioner, on 26.08.2019, filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 praying for a direction to the respondents to accept the amount mentioned in Ext.P5 and the interest which had accr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overdue. While so, the Government introduced a scheme of amnesty, providing for settlement of Government dues, which included abkari liability. On the petitioner's application, he was permitted to settle the liability on payment of ₹ 27,61,131/-, which was the principal amount. When the petitioner's effort for re-conveyance did not succeed, he filed the writ petition and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ petition directing the Government to re-convey the bought-in-land to the petitioner. In the appeal filed by the State, the Division bench disagreed with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner was entitled to re-conveyance of the bought-in-land, and held that unless the Amnesty Scheme provided for re-conveyance of property which had been taken over by the Government as bought-in-land, the Court cannot direct re-conveyance. However, the Division bench accepted the contention of the defaulter that relief could be granted to him on equitable grounds. The Division Bench allowed the appeal vacating the judgement of the learned Single Judge, but on the principles of equity allowed the defaulter to settle the balance payable and get re-conveyance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication for extending Amnesty Scheme and to pay the balance amount due towards the Abkari Workers Welfare fund and Toddy Workers Welfare fund. The District Collector was directed to restore possession on receipt of a deposit of ₹ 20 lakhs. 12. In Chandrasekharan (Supra), the sale was conducted for arrears of sales tax, which fell due during 1995-96 and 1996-97. The sale was conducted while an appeal filed against the assessment order was pending. After the confirmation of the sale, the appeals filed by the assessee against the assessment order was allowed, setting aside the assessment orders and remitting the matter to the assessment officer for modification and consequential orders. The assessment orders were modified and the assessee was permitted to avail the Amnesty Scheme, consequently, withdrawing the Revenue Recovery requisition. Thereafter, the assessee approached the District Collector for return of the land, but the request was rejected, saying that the mere fact that the defaulter has been permitted to pay off the dues under Amnesty Scheme does not entitle him to claim re-conveyance. The defaulter approached this Court in a Writ petition, which was dismissed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time to deposit a sum of ₹ 3,44,743/-, with a condition that, if the sum is not deposited, the bought-in-land proceedings will be confirmed. 14. It can be seen from the various decisions, that this Court has been granting relief to persons who have lost their properties in revenue sale where Government is the purchaser by applying the principles of equity. Coming to the question of delay raised by the Senior Government Pleader, it is well settled that a person seeking equity should not be sleeping over his rights as the maxim Vigilantibus, et non dormientibus jura subveniunt says. As Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, speaking for a Three Judge Bench of the apex court said in the decision in Raja Jagdambika Pratap Narain Singh v. CBDT reported in (1975) 4 SCC 578, the plea based on justice, equity and good conscience is no good alibi in expiation of the sin of gross delay in coming to the High Court. However, the said principle cannot be applied to the case on hand since the petitioner had approached the authorities immediately after the sale, but the authorities contributed to the delay to a large extent and informed the petitioner of the amount that has to deposited for getting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heque for an amount more than what is stated in Exhibit P5 but the same was returned by the respondents stating that a Government order issued in 2013 does not permit the State to re-convey bought-in-land after the expiry of 5 years from the sale. It is in the above background that the application filed by the petitioner pending the writ petition seeking a direction to return the property by accepting the tender of the amount due as per Exhibit P5, along with reasonable interest, has to be considered. 17. Apart from the fact that the sale has to be held to be invalid since the same has been completed without following the procedure prescribed by law, even on the principles of equity, it is a case coming within the remedy of rescission . Dealing with the principle, it has been stated in 31st Edition of Snell's Equity in paragraph 13-01 in Chapter 13 as follows: 13-01 - Nature - The term rescission is capable of numerous meanings. In this text it refers to the non- consensual un-picking of a transaction: the setting-aside of the agreement and the restoration of the parties (more or less) to the position they would have been in had the transaction never been made. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
