CHOLAMUGHATH MOIDU Vs. TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner obtained a loan from the 4th respondent bank. He defaulted repayment of the same. The bank initiated recovery proceedings through the 2nd respondent. The petitioner did not pay. Therefore, the Government purchased the land for Re.1/-. Subsequently, by Exts. P2 and P3, the Government itself informed the petitioner that if amounts due with interest and other expenses are paid by the petitioner, the property would be reconveyed to the petitioner. The petitioner repaid the entire amount after availing OTS benefit from the 4th respondent bank, and by Ext. P4 letter, the bank informed the 1st respondent that the entire amount has been paid by the petitioner and the bank has no objection in releasing the property to the petitioner. In Ext. P4 letter it is also stated that an amount of Rs.1,500/- as collection charges for the amount realised is forwarded by DD. In spite of the same, the Government now, by Ext. P7, intimated the petitioner that since the petitioner has not complied with the stipulations of the Government within the time stipulated, the petitioner's claim for reconveyance of the petitioner's property cannot be considered. I had directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions from the Government in the matter. Today, the learned Government Pleader argues in support of Ext. P7 order.

(2.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

(3.) I am of opinion that the stand taken by the Government is not a just one. Revenue recovery proceedings were taken not for any amount due to the Government. As such, it is strange that the Government itself purchased the property for Re.1/-. The Government has no case that the Government had forwarded the dues payable by the petitioner to the 4th respondent bank after purchasing the property. As such, the Government, which is a third party gets benefits out of the proceedings, which cannot be countenanced, especially since the third party is the Government. Now that the bank has accepted the entire amount due from the petitioner and released the property from the charge and mortgage, I do not think that the Government can hold on to the property. Accordingly, I quash Ext. P7 and direct the Government to reconvey the property to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Of course, if any balance collection charges are due from the petitioner, the Government would be entitled to recover it from the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above.