BY AD v. N.M.MADHU

SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN WP(C): FRANCIS LAYANS AGED 63 YEARS VINOD BHAVAN, POZHIYOOR, POZHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695515 BY ADVS. N.M.MADHU C.S.RAJANI(K/2275/1999) SR GP SRI T K VIPINDAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 2057 OF 2023 Amit Rawal, J. 2 JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench whereby following reliefs claimed by the respondent/petitioner has been allowed: i. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to pay to the Petitioner the amount of Rs.7,49,998/- with market rate interest being the amount legally due to the Petitioner as per the auction sale of the dues held on 30-3-2006 held under the provisions of the of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act: ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction to declare that the Petitioner is entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs.7,49,998/- out of the sale price of the property of the Petitioner sold in Revenue auction by the Government with market rate interest as expeditiously as possible; iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction to declaring that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme contemplated in Exhibit-P4 order of the Government to discharge the arrears of Abkari dues under the Revenue Recovery Act; iv. To grant to the Petitioner such other and further reliefs that may be prayed for from time to time and this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant; And v. To award to the petitioner the costs in these proceedings.” WA NO. 2057 OF 2023 3

2. Respondent/petitioner, according to the averments in the writ petition, belongs to Fisherman Community and in the year 1991-1992, along with late Manoharan Nair, had taken Arrack shops falling under Amaravila Range, third group in the auction. However, there was a default in the payment of the dues towards the excise department, resulted into initiation of proceedings under the Kerala Land Revenue Recovery Act against Manoharan Nair. Immovable property to the extent of 22.588 cents comprised in Re-survey No.603/8 situated in Parassala Village was attached and sold by the Revenue Department. There were no bidders at the time of auction and was purchased by the Government. But, thereafter, Federal Bank raised the objection on the premise that against the aforementioned property, they had a first charge.

3. It is thereafter only the Revenue Department on the request of the Exercise Department initiated steps to recover the amount from the property of the appellant. At earlier point of time when the proceedings of auction was conducted, no bidder came ultimately, the Government purchased the WA NO. 2057 OF 2023 4 property for a value of one rupee (Rs.1). The said action was challenged. The sale in favour of the Government was set aside and direction was issued to re-auction. It is in the re- auction which was conducted on 30.03.2006, property has fetched an amount of Rs.10,30,000/-. After a period of two years, Government came out with an Amnesty Scheme dated

26.05.2008 Ext.P4 covering the period involved in the present case. At the relevant point of time, respondent/petitioner had already challenged the action of the appellants vide W.P. (C)No.598/2007. During the pendency of the aforementioned writ petition, received a communication dated 26.06.2008 Ext.P7 for withdrawing the writ petition for the purpose of exercising the option vis-à-vis the Amnesty Scheme. On

08.07.2008, the writ petition, aforementioned, was withdrawn. However, the Government did not adjust the principal amount due towards the respondent/petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,88,002/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty eight thousand two only) nor refunded the balance amount. It is in that background, writ jurisdiction of this Court was invoked.

4. On analysis of the material on record, the learned WA NO. 2057 OF 2023 5 Single Bench allowed the writ petition. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of the Revenue Department as well as the Excise.

5. Mr.T.K.Vipin Das, learned Senior Government Pleader, in support of the memorandum of appeal has raised the following submissions: Auction had already completed on 30.03.2006 whereas the Amnesty Scheme came on 26.05.2008. Respondent/petitioner did not have any lien on the property. Even if the amount received in the auction have not been adjusted towards the amount respondent/petitioner, there would not have any cause to agitate the issue.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/petitioner submitted that the argument have no legs to stand for the reason that the document Ext.P7 would ex facie reveal that respondent/ petitioner was permitted to participate/exercise the option vis- à-vis the Amnesty Scheme promulgated on 26.05.2008 with a condition to withdraw the writ petition referred above. Writ WA NO. 2057 OF 2023 6 petition was withdrawn on 08.07.2008.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the arguments of Mr.Tk.Vipin Das. Reasons are not one but many. The facts, as noticed above, are not in dispute. We have not been apprised with regard to the steps taken to recover the amount due from Manoharan Nair even if the Federal Bank had raised the objection having a first charge. Be that as it may. The proportionate amount due from the respondent/petitioner was Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) containing element of interest and penalty. In the auction the property belonging to respondent/petitioner fetched a sum of Rs.10,30,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs thirty thousand only). The Amnesty Scheme though came into being on 26.05.2008, respondent/petitioner was permitted to take the benefit of the Scheme. Having taken the benefit, it is immaterial if the auction has been taken place. Intriguingly Revenue Department did not pass on the principal amount due from the respondent/petitioner ie., Rs.2,88,002/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty eight thousand two only) to the Excise WA NO. 2057 OF 2023 7 Department. In such circumstances, the records of the Excise Department reflected the amount due towards the respondent/Petitioner. All these factors have been examined threadbare by the Single Bench. Appeal sans merit accordingly dismissed. At this stage, Mr.T.K.Vipin Das, learned Government Pleader seeks three months time to comply with the judgment. Two months time is granted. Sd/ AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE