Dharmarajan T.N. v. The Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram; The District Collector, Ernakulam; Tahsildar, Muvattupuzha; Village Officer, Vellorkunnam, Muvattupuzha

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/28TH KARTHIKA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No.4338 of 2010 (N) ------------------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **-------------------** **1. DHARMARAJAN.T.N,S/O.NARAYANAN, THURAVACKAL HOUSE,KADATHY KARA, MEKKADAMPU.P.O,VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.** ## ***ADDITIONAL 2ND PETITIONER IMPLEADED** - **ADDL.P2.USHADEVI,AGED 47,W/O.DHARMARAJAN, THURAVACKAL HOUSE,KADATHY KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE,MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. (LEGAL HEIR OF THE FIRST PETITIONER).** ***ADDL.2ND PETITIONER IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09/04/2012 IN IA NO.4221/2012.** ## ***ADDITIONAL 3RD AND 4TH PETITIONERS IMPLEADED** **Addl.P3.T.D.UNNIKRISHNAN,S/O.DHARMARAJAN,AGED 25 YEARS, THURAVAKKAL HOUSE,KADATHY KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE,MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. (LEGAL HEIR OF THE FIRST PETITIONER)** **Addl.P4.T.D.DHANESH,S/O.DHARMARAJAN,AGED 22 YEARS, THURAVAKKAL HOUSE,KADATHY KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE,MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. (LEGAL HEIR OF THE FIRST PETITIONER).** **ADDL. 3RD & 4TH PETITIONERS ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09/04/2012 IN IA 4690/2012.** ## **BY ADV.SRI.M.V.PAULOSE** ## **RESPONDENT'S:** **-------------------------** **1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM.** **pto** **...2...** ## **WP(C).No.4338 of 2010 (N)** **-------------------------------------** ## **3. THE TAHSILDAR,MUVATTUPUZHA.** **4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VELLORKUNNAM, MUVATTUPUZHA.** **R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.RENNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMBIL.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **pk** ## **WP(C).No.4338 of 2010 (N)** **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1:A PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B-4 6113/04 DATED 3.9.2004 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P2:A PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.C 4680001 DATED 28.4.2009 FOR THE YEAR 2009/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P3:A PHOTOCOPY OF SALE NOTICE DATED 24.11.2004 ALONG WITH SKETCH & MAHAZAR.** **EXT.P4:A PHOTOCOPY OF THE SKETCH & MAHZAR DATED 7.1.2010 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **pk** ## C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ----------------------------------------WP(C).NO. 4338 of 2010 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 19th day of November, 2014 ## JUDGMENT Ext.P4 Mahazar prepared by the 4[th] respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. Inter alia, the petitioner seeks direction to restrain the respondents from taking any further steps pursuant to Ext.P4. 2. Brief facts of the case is that, 30 cents of property comprised in survey No.854/9A of Velloorkunnam Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk belonging to the petitioner was proceeded against under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of sales tax arrears due from him. Ext.P1 is the notice of attachment issued under section 36 of the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner had approached the Government seeking exemption of the “house site” of 4 cents from the sale proceedings. It is alleged that, on the basis of such a request, the 3[rd] respondent had proceeded only against 26 cents of property after exempting the 4 cents wherein the homestead is situated. The 3[rd] respondent had sold in auction 26 cents of property, which was WPC.No.4338/2010 2 challenged by the petitioner in another writ petition filed as WP (C).No.26820/2007. Thereafter, by virtue of Ext.P4 Mahazar, the respondents 3 and 4 had initiated further steps to proceed against the 4 cents of property which contained the residential house. It is contended that the proceedings now initiated cannot be sustained legally because the said property was already exempted from the revenue recovery steps. It is contended that the respondents are estopped from proceeding against the property on the basis that it stands already exempted. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the exemption with respect to 4 cents of property allowed by the respondents will amount to a concession granted in favour of the petitioner and the respondents are estopped from withdrawing such concession. He relies on a decision of this court in **Gopalakrishna Kunikullaya vs. State of Kerala (1994 (1) KLT 535)** in order to contend that if the Government declares a concession through an executive order and if the beneficiary to whom such concession was intended had acted on the basis of such concession, the Government is bound to stand by the promise given. It is further contended that on the basis of the WPC.No.4338/2010 3 promise/concession granted with respect to exempting the 4 cents of property, the petitioner had incurred heavy expenditure for repairing the house building. Therefore the impugned action now taken is hit by principles of promissory estoppal. Another decision of this court in **Haseetha vs. Union of India (1996(2) KLT SN 37)** was also relied upon to contend the above proposition. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3[rd] respondent it is admitted that, originally the auction of 4 cents along with the residential building was deferred on humanitarian considerations. But the total arrears due was Rs.3,25,21,418/- and the sale of 26 cents have fetched only an amount of Rs.70,750/- Since the arrears is still outstanding, the balance extent of property comprising the residential building need to be proceeded against. The said property is under attachment effected for realisation of the very same arrears. It is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the proceedings initiated against the 4 cents of property, merely because that the auction was once deferred with respect to the said extent of land. There is no provision in the statute exempting any portion of the property belonging to 4 WPC.No.4338/2010 the defaulter from being proceeded against for realisation of the arrears. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that contention of the petitioner that the Government have exempted the 4 cents of property from the revenue recovery proceedings, is absolutely incorrect. It is only on the basis of humanitarian consideration that the Tahsildar had exempted the extent of 4 cents of land from the initial sale. Therefore the contentions based on estoppal or promissory estoppal raised by the petitioner is absolutely unsustainable, is the contention. 4. WP(C).No.26820/2007 filed by the petitioner challenging the sale with respect to 26 cents of property was dismissed by this court on today vide; separate judgment. This court do not find any materials produced to show that the 4 cents of property which is the subject matter of this writ petition was exempted at any point of time from the revenue recovery proceedings. Despite the contention raised by the petitioner, he is not in a position to produce any order or proceedings issued either by the Government or by the respondents concerned, exempting the said property from the revenue recovery steps. Merely because the said extent of land was exempted in the sale WPC.No.4338/2010 5 proceedings conducted, it cannot be said that respondents are estopped from proceeding further against the said property. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances this court do not find any merit in the contentions raised. 6. Resultantly the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Pmn/