PADMAVATHY Vs. KERALA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an abkari contractor who defaulted on her liability to the Sales Tax Department. By Ext. P1 notice, pertaining to the assessment year 1994 -1995, a demand was served on her for an amount of Rs. 7,62,241/ -. Thereafter, pursuant to Ext. P2 requisition notice by the sales tax authorities, Exts. P4 and P5 attachment notices pertaining to lands owned by the petitioner in Vellattanjur village and Chiranallur village came to be attached for realization of the dues from the petitioner. It is stated that subsequently the sales tax authorities had reduced the demand to a figure of Rs. 7,57,980/ -. It is also pointed out that in appeal the demand against the petitioner was further reduced and accordingly, the revenue recovery proceedings were continued against the petitioner only for an amount of Rs. 9,78,596/ -, which included the tax and the interest thereon. The revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner culminated in Exts. P7 and P8 orders whereby the sale of the lands covered by Exts. P4 and P5 notices were confirmed. Insofar as there were no purchasers at the auction conducted by the respondents, the properties in question were purchased by the Government itself as a bought -in land in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. It would appear that the petitioner thereafter preferred a representation with the Government for re -conveyance of the land that was purchased by the Government as bought -in land in the revenue recovery proceedings. By Ext. P10 order dated 06.05.2010, the Government rejected the request of the petitioner for re -conveyance citing inter alia the Government Circulars that mandated that an application for re -conveyance of lands, that had been purchased by the Government in revenue recovery proceedings, had to be preferred within two years from the date of confirmation of the sale. As this was not done by the petitioner, the Government did not deem it necessary to consider her application for re -conveyance. Ext. P10 order of the Government is impugned in the writ petition together with Exts. P7 and P8 orders confirming the sale.

(2.) THE main contention of the petitioner is with regard to the manner in which the sale is said to have been conducted. According to the petitioner, the respondents did not comply with the requirement of Section 50(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act while conducting the sale that led to the purchase of the land by the Government.

(3.) I have heard Sri. Sabu John, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.