DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. SUBAIDA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents 1 to 4 in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The writ petitioner is the first respondent. The point that arises for decision in this Writ Appeal is whether, in the absence of a purchaser for a property, put to sale under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (for short, 'the Act'), at the instance of an institution covered by the notification issued under Section 71 thereof, it can be purchased by the Government, as provided under Section 50(2) of the Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are the following: The first respondent and her husband purchased certain properties from Smt. N.K. Bharathy and her father. The said properties included the 5 cents of property, which is involved in this case. The first respondent's husband, later settled his rights in the said 5 cents of property, in favour of the first respondent and she became the absolute owner of the said property.

(3.) Smt. Bharathy had availed a loan from the second respondent Bank, mortgaging the aforementioned 5 cents of property. Since she defaulted in repaying the loan, the Bank moved the revenue recovery officials and the property was put to sale. Since there were no purchasers for the property, the Revenue Recovery Officer purchased the property under Section 50(2)(i) of the Act, on 22.5.1989, for one rupee. The sale of the property in favour of the State was confirmed on 1.9.1989. The sale of the property by Smt. Bharathy in favour of the first respondent and her husband took place on 6.7.1995. Thereafter, from the sale consideration, Smt. Bharathy paid the entire amount due to the Bank, to the revenue recovery officials, as evident from Ext.P5 receipt dated 28.6.1995. Earlier, she moved the District Collector, Alappuzha, on 20.3.1994, for release of the property, but she was informed by Ext.R1(a) that since the time limit of two years was already over, the property cannot be re-conveyed. Later, the first respondent moved the District Collector for re-conveyance of the land. When the said attempt failed, she moved under the Right to Information Act and she was informed by Ext.P8 dated 3.4.2009 that the aforementioned 5 cents of land was vested in the State Government as 'bought-in-land'.