THIRUMALAISWAMY M Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue raised in this writ petition pertains to the validity of the sale of an immovable property, conducted under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act by respondents 1 to 3 for realisation of the amounts due to the 4th respondent bank.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner and his father were partners of a firm by name Rohini Oil Mills. Mortgaging 70 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 117 AA / 1, Muthalamada Village, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad District, belonging to the father of the petitioner, who was also a partner of the firm, a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) was availed of from the 4th respondent bank. Default was committed and revenue recovery proceedings at the instance of the 4th respondent were initiated by respondents 2 and 3. Finally, on 20/11/1997, the mortgaged property, which was already under attachment, was sold and was purchased by the government as bought in land. This fact is admitted by the official respondents in the counter - affidavit filed by them. Subsequently, the sale was also confirmed on 31/05/2002.

(3.) Later, petitioner's father expired and the petitioner says that he inherited the assets of his father. Petitioner raised necessary amounts and paid the dues of the bank availing of the benefits of a One Time Settlement Scheme. Accordingly, the bank issued Ext. P1 receipt evidencing discharge of the liability due from the firm. Further Ext. P5 communication was also issued by the bank on 17/01/2009 requesting respondents 2 and 3 for discontinuance of recovery proceedings. This was issued in the meantime. It is also submitted that there were dues to the District Industries Centre and also to the Kerala Finance Corporation which were also discharged as per Exts. P2, P3 and P4.