S.ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is before this Court challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appellant had approached the revenue recovery authority for re-conveyance of the land, which was purchased by the Government as bought-in- land, in proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for brevity "the RR Act" only). Ext.P3 communication was issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Kottarakkara directing remittance of market value for re-conveyance of the property. The direction for remittance of market value is as per Ext.R4(a) dated 11.02.2016. The market value was assessed at Rs.4,96,000/-. The learned Single Judge considering the challenge, directed deposit of an amount of Rs.4,96,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within six months; the interest to run from the date of the judgment. On such remittance, the learned Single Judge directed re-conveyance of the property to the petitioner. The petitioner is in appeal before this Court against the aforesaid judgment.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the proceedings were taken on the basis of a sales tax assessment proceeded with for various years, which were set aside in appeal by Ext.P1 and remanded for fresh consideration. On further assessments being made, the petitioner had settled the amounts in an Amnesty Scheme as is seen from Ext.P7 depositing a total amount of Rs.57,239/-. It is after the said settlement that the petitioner sought for re-conveyance of the lands before the Government. It is submitted that the petitioner is still in occupation of the residential building situated in the land and the Government has not taken any steps to take over the said property. It is harsh to direct the petitioner to pay the market value of the land, especially since, the petitioner had settled the dues under an Amnesty Scheme brought out by the Government.

(3.) The learned Special Government Pleader however, would oppose the prayer for re-conveyance specifically relying on Exts.P11 and P12 notifications. The respondent was a defaulter, against whom proceedings were initiated under the RR Act. The bought-in-land proceedings were also concluded as per Section 50 of the Act. The defaulter could seek for re-conveyance of the land initially, within two years, which period stood extended to 5 years on depositing the entire dues to the Government. The petitioner had not made any such attempt and had merely settled the dues under the Amnesty Scheme which was long after the period prescribed in Exts.P11 and P12 notifications. There is no cause for any re-conveyance of the property or cancellation of the bought-in-land proceedings; is the specific contention. It is also pointed out that, earlier the petitioner had sought such re-conveyance which was declined by another Single Judge by Ext.P6 judgment. The judgment having become final for reason of the petitioner having not challenged it, there is no scope for interference to the bought-in-land proceedings, is the defence.