LEENA MOHANDAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a defaulter in respect of Abkari dues for the year 2000-2001. In the year 2013, the Government brought in an Amnesty Scheme for payment of abkari arrears. The petitioner claimed the benefit of the same which was originally granted as per Ext P1. Subsequently, the same was cancelled as per Ext P2 since recovery steps as against the petitioner were already over as on 22/9/2004. Ext P2 order declining the benefit of Amnesty Scheme is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(2.) Heard Sri.P Jayaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Resmi K.M, learned senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

(3.) As noticed first above, amounts were due from the petitioner towards Abkari dues for the period 2000-2001. For recovery of the dues, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against 1.89 acres of property belonging to the petitioner, situated at Kulukkallur Village. Though the property was put in auction in the said proceedings on various occasions, there were no bidders. Finally, in terms of the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, the Government purchased the property as bought-in-land on 26/3/2003. The sale was confirmed by the Sub Collector, Ottapalam on 22/9/2004. The Amnesty Scheme relating to the Abkari dues for the period 2000-2005, on which the petitioner claims benefit, was brought in only in the year 2013. According to the respondents, since the liability did not subsist after the property was purchased as a bought-in-land on 26/3/2003 and confirmed on 22/9/2004, the petitioner cannot raise any further claim for Amnesty Scheme. As on the date on which the petitioner sought the benefit of the Amnesty scheme, the liability did not subsist, is the contention.