C. Vijayan v. Tahsildar, Tirur; Village Officer, Naduvattom; District Collector, Malappuram; State of Kerala; Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub Regional Office, Calicut; Ummee Kurukkal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/3RD KARTHIKA, 1939 WP(C).No. 2416 of 2013 (B) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- C.VIJAYAN S/O. NARAYANAN, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. C. VIJAYAN & COMPANY, EDAYOOR NORTH, VALANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. TAHSILDAR TIRUR. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER,. NADUVATTOM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARYU, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CALICUT. ADDL. 6. UMMEE KURUKKAL, S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS, CHANGAMPILLY KIZHAKKUMPATT HOUSE, NADUVATTOM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 592. ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.1.2015 IN I.A.NO.783 OF 2015. R5 BY SC SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, R3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER RADDL.6 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.RAJAN RADDL.6 BY ADV. SMT.MAREEJA MOOSA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2416 of 2013 (B) ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF SALE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 2.6.2010. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).20890/2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.1.2013. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R6(1): COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2430/2014 DATED 5.6.2014 EXECUTED AT KUTTIPURAM SRO. EXHIBIT R6(2): COPY OF NOTE TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NADUVATTOM DATED 23.12.2014 TO THE 6TH ADDL.RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 2416 of 2013 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of October, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed with the following reliefs: - _“a) writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, commanding respondents 1 to 3 restraining them from interfering with the petitioner's property covered by Ext.P1, either on the basis of bought in land or otherwise._ - _b) writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Village Officer to accept land tax and issue receipts in respect of the property.”_ 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 6[th] respondent. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner had purchased an extent of 63.25 cents of land in Sy.No.130/1,2,3,6 & 7 of Naduvattom Village of Tirur Taluk in Malappuram District. The property was purchased by Exhibit P1 sale certificate in an auction sale conducted by the Employees Provident Fund Organization. The petitioner contended that he had also effected mutation of the property and land tax had been paid by him in respect of the property covered by Exhibit P1. By Exhibit P3 judgment, an amount of Rs.24,50,000/-, which was paid by the petitioner as consideration for the above mentioned _**WP(C).2416/13**_ 2 property, was directed to be deposited after deducting the amount of Rs.4,19,506/- due to the Provident Fund Organization before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Registrar was directed to invite claims from creditors of the Society and to take steps to disburse such amounts due. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner had title and possession of 63.25 cents of property on the strength of Exhibits P1 and P3, the Revenue authorities had come to the property and demarcated a portion of the property from the property purchased by the petitioner and had stated that the said property is bought-inland. It was stated that the said extent of 10 cents of land was covered by the order of the Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna dated 8.2.1995 and that the said extent of property was Government land. Though the petitioner had preferred Exhibit P4 representation before the 1[st] respondent, no orders were passed thereon. It was in the above circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 5. It is submitted that the property has since been sold to the 6[th] respondent in the year 2014. The 6[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that he had no knowledge _**WP(C).2416/13**_ 3 of any earlier proceedings and since the entire dues to the Provident Fund Organization had already been released to it, the Revenue authorities had no claim whatsoever to the property. It is also contended, relying on a decision of this Court in _**District Collector v. Subaida Beevi**_ [2010(1) KLT 913], that where the revenue recovery proceedings are taken on behalf of a requisitioning authority, the purchase of the property on nominal consideration can only be on behalf of the said authority. The later auction sale by the requisitioning authority, therefore would lead to full transfer of rights in favour of the auction purchaser. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3[rd] respondent on 10.12.2013. It is stated in the counter affidavit that 10 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.130/3 of Neduvattom Village had been attached and put up for public auction in pursuance of a request made by the Employees Provident Fund Organization authorities under Section 69(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,19,506/-. It is stated that though auction was conducted several times, there were no bidders and the land was purchased by the Government for an amount of R.1/- on 4 _**WP(C).2416/13**_ 30.3.1985 as per Section 50(2)(i) of the Act. It is further stated that the sale was confirmed and sale certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner on 17.6.1991 and the said sale has become final. It is stated that the Revenue authorities were not parties to Exhibit P3 judgment. However, in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit, it is specifically stated that the properties brought to sale by the Employees Provident Fund authorities, which had resulted in Exhibit P1 sale certificate, were out of the remaining extent of land belonging to the defaulter Society. It is stated that the Society originally owned 98 cents of land. It is stated that mutation was effected in respect of 63.250 cents of land in favour of the petitioner in the writ petition. It is stated in paragraph 3 that out of the 98 cents of land, mutation was effected only for 63.250 cents and that the bought-in-land was not comprised in the above extent. It is stated that the Village Officer had denied tax remittance when the petitioner claimed right over the bought-in-land alone. It is also stated that respondents 1 to 4 have no intention to interfere with the petitioner's right legally devolved on him and the claim is only in respect of the bought-in-land. 5 _**WP(C).2416/13**_ 7. I have considered the contentions advanced. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Revenue authorities, it is clear that the claim is to the effect that out of 98 cents of land belonging to the defaulter Co-operative Society, only 10 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.130/3 was attached and put to sale and bid in auction by the Government. It is stated that the auction conducted by the Employees Provident Fund Organization was in respect of the remaining land. The statement made in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: _“3. .....Out of 98 cents of landed property, mutation was effected only for 63.250 cents and bought-in-land was not comprised in the above extent...”_ It is therefore the contention of the Government that the land covered by Exhibit P1 sale certificate, transfer of which was effected in favour of the petitioner, does not include the bought-in-land. In the above view of the matter, the question whether the bought-in-land can be purchased by the Government or is to be purchased in favour of the requisitioning authority is not a question which needs to be gone into in these proceedings. 6 _**WP(C).2416/13**_ Since the petitioner has claim only to the property covered by Exhibit P1 and since it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 3[rd] respondent that the bought-in-land does not form part of the property covered by Exhibit P1, all that needs to be done is to record the said contention which is a part of the affidavit filed by the Deputy Collector, Malappuram. The above contention made in the counter affidavit is recorded. It is made clear that respondents 1 to 4 shall accept the basic tax from the petitioner or the 6[th] respondent, as the case may be, on the strength of Exhibit P1 sale certificate and any further documents executed by the petitioner. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** _vgs25/10_