A.S. Suresh Kumar v. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Thiruvananthapuram; The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur; The Tahsildar, Kodungallur; The Welfare Fund Inspector, Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Board

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.10073 OF 2013(H)** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER:** **A.S.SURESH KUMAR S/O. SUKUMARAN, AYINIPULLI HOUSE, SREE NARAYANAPURAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR-680 001.** - **3 THE TAHSILDAR KODUNGALLUR TALUK, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 664.** - **4 THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, MALAPPURAM-676 505.** **R1-3 BY SHRI. B. VINOD, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KTWWFB(TODDY WORKERS WELFARE BOARD** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **-2-** ## **WP(C).No.10073 OF 2013(H)** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the respondents challenging Exts.P5 and P10 orders and also seeking a direction to the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board to accept the amounts due from the petitioner towards the arrears due for the year 20002001. Further directions are sought for to the respondent to return the land taken over from the petitioner by accepting the amounts due to the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent Board. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner was one of the licencees of toddy shops in Mannarkkadu range during 2000-2001. Pursuant to Ext.P3 final **-3-** ## **WP(C).No.10073 OF 2013(H)** determination order, the licencees were to pay amounts to the Board. Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner's property and the land was bought to sale. In the absence of auction purchasers, 1.66 acres of property was purchased by the Government for Re.1/- and treated as bought in land. Though the petitioner expressed willingness to pay off the amounts due to the Board under the amnesty scheme, the respondents declined to reconvey the property. Ext.P10 order was passed by the Government refusing to set aside the sale and hence the writ petition. 4. Detailed counter affidavits have been placed on record by the respondents. It has been contended by the 3[rd] respondent Tahasildar that amounts were due from the petitioner towards the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund and that requisition has been issued by the **-4-** ## **WP(C).No.10073 OF 2013(H)** Welfare Fund Inspector, Palakkad to the District Collector to realise the total amount of Rs.31,69,1,56/towards the arrears and interest due from the petitioner. It is stated that the arrears are in respect of the toddy shops conducted by the petitioner for the period from 1997-1998 to 2000-2001. It is stated that pursuant to the revenue recovery notices, an extent of 1 acre and 66 cents of land in Panangad village had been attached and auction sale was conducted on 06.02.2002, 27.04.2002, 23.05.2002 and 17.06.2002. But no bidders had turned up to bid in auction. 5. O.P.No.15631/2002 had been filed by the petitioner and the revenue recovery steps had been stayed. It is stated that though the sale was posted several times subsequently also, there were no bidders and the land was taken over by the Government as bought-in-land. It is submitted that the land was **-5-** ## **WP(C).No.10073 OF 2013(H)** included in the land bank as per the directions of the District Collector, Thrissur, dated 06.11.2008 and the petitioner had no right to seek a re-conveyance of the same. It is submitted that Ext.P10 is, therefore, perfectly legal and valid and that it is only if the entire amounts due with interest and charges are paid within two years from the date of buying in the land and reconveyance sought for as provided in the Revenue Recovery Act that the property can be re-conveyed. 6. An interim order had been rendered on 06.09.2013 staying the assignment on registry of the land in question. Thereafter, documents had been produced by the petitioner to show that the respondent Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board had expressed willingness to clear off the the liabilities of the petitioner under the Amnesty Scheme. It was prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to pay off the **-6-** ## **WP(C).No.10073 OF 2013(H)** amounts and to get the land re-conveyed in his favour. Another interim order was passed on 20.02.2019 recording the contentions of the parties and directing the Board to receive an amount of Rs.58,50,869/- in full and final settlement of all amounts due to the Board. By further order dated 26.02.2019, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an amount of Rs.59,15,400/- had been paid by the petitioner inclusive of all amounts as demanded by the Welfare Fund Board with collection charges and that receipt had been issued on 25.02.2019. It was directed that the payment shall be reckoned as due compliance of Ext.P15 communication. 7. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the Board would submit that as far as the Board is concerned, the entire arrears dues of the petitioner had been cleared **-7-** ## **WP(C).No.10073 OF 2013(H)** by the payment effected on 25.02.2019 and that the Board has no objection to the land being reconveyed to the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **Chandrasekharan v. State of Kerala [** 2018(3) KLT 562 **]** and contended that since the amounts paid due to the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board and the Welfare Fund Board stood satisfied by the payments made by the petitioner on 25.02.2019, the respondent cannot refuse to re-convey the property to the petitioner, who was the original owner. It is stated that since the basis for the revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner stood eroded on the basis of the payments made, the further retention of the property by the State is completely misconceived and cannot be sustained. The decisions of **-8-** ## **WP(C).No.10073 OF 2013(H)** this Court in **Lakshmi Devi Tile Works v. District Collector, Thrissur [** 2009(2) KLT 587], **Thulasibai v. State of Kerala [** 2010(1) KLT 917], **Sibi Francis v. State of Kerala [** 2013(2) KLT SN 82]; and **Subhash M.S. v. The Village Officer [** 2014(4) KLT 625] are referred to and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The learned Government Pleader would, on the other hand, contend that the revenue recovery proceedings had been initiated on the basis of a requisition issued by the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board. However, once the proceedings are initiated, the proceedings are liable to be proceeded with in the same manner as for recovery of amounts due on land and that as such the stand taken in Exts.P5 and P10 is the correct legal stand. 10. Having considered the contentions advanced **-9-** ## **WP(C).No.10073 OF 2013(H)** and having gone through judgments of this Court, I find that the contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader cannot be accepted. A Full Bench of this Court in Perumbavoor Municipality v. Assistant Engineer [2015 (1) KLT 95] held that amounts due to statutory Boards and Corporations are not public revenue due on land and the longer period of limitation is not available for the recovery of such dues. In 2010(1) KLT 913, it was held that when a notification is issued under S.71 of the RR Act, provisions of the Act apply mutatis mutandis to recovery of amounts due to the institution. Therefore, when land is purchased under S.50(2) in the absence of bidders in the auction, the purchase is on behalf of the institution concerned and there can be no purchase on behalf of the State. The action of the recovery officers in converting the property as boughtin-land could only be construed as an action taken on **-10-** **WP(C).No.10073 OF 2013(H)** behalf of the requisitioning authority, that is, the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board. Once the Welfare Fund Board had accepted the amounts from the petitioner as 'in full and final settlement of the amounts in arrears', the reason for the initiation of the revenue recovery proceedings stood eroded. Once there is no amount due to the requisitioning authority, the Government, who at best, could have taken over the property for and on behalf of that authority, cannot raise a claim that the property is liable to be retained by the Government since there were no auction purchasers in the sale conducted by it. This being the legal position, the contention raised by the respondent that the property cannot be re-conveyed since the application for reconveyance was not made within 2 years cannot be accepted. The Government, who have no legal right to retain the property as its own, cannot stand on **-11-** ## **WP(C).No.10073 OF 2013(H)** technicalities to deny the re-conveyance since the Board has expressed its satisfaction of the amounts due. The writ petition is therefore ordered directing the 1[st] respondent to take appropriate steps to re-convey the property to the petitioner. Appropriate steps shall be taken and the re-conveyance shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **Sd/-** **ANU SIVARAMAN** **JUDGE** Nkr/21.12.2019 **-12-** ## **WP(C).No.10073 OF 2013(H)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE CONFIRMATION NOTICE DTD.31.3.2000.** **EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PRE ASSESSMENT NOTICE DTD.5.2.2004.** **EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DTD.12.4.2004.** **EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVIEW ORDER DTD.2.2.2005.** **EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DTD.23.6.2005.** **EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE MINISTER ON 18.6.2007.** **EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DTD.9.7.2007 RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DTD.30.12.08. EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.17.4.2010 RECEIVED FROM OFFICE OF THE MINISTERS.** **EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DTD.27.11.2012. EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 24.4.2013 EXHIBIT P12 A COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 5.10.2006 EXHIBIT P13 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.10.2008 EXHIBIT P14 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.7.2012 EXHIBIT P15 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO B5/RR/OTS/4156/18-19 DATED 6.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, PALAKKAD** **-13-** ## **WP(C).No.10073 OF 2013(H)** **EXHIBIT P16 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO RMC/5174/PALAKKAD/16-18 DATED 30.10.2018 ISSUED BY SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)** **EXHIBIT P17 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.1024/2018 DATED 23.8.2018 EXHIBIT P18 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.2.2019 OF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, PALAKKAD EXHIBIT P19 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.2.2019** **EXHIBIT P20 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 21.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR EXHIBIT P21 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT NO.928732 DATED 22.2.2019 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS,6,00,000/EXHIBIT P22 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NO.441103 DATED 22.2.2019 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.53,15,400/-** - **EXHIBIT P23 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 22.2.2019** - **EXHIBIT P24 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE BOARD DATED 25.3.2019** - **EXHIBIT P25 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.3.2019** - **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO GO.(MS) NO 181/13/REVENUE DATED 3.5.2013 ANNEXURE R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO. 1019/2018**