P T VENU Vs. EXCISE COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was the 14th respondent in the Writ Petition. The respondents 1 to 13 respectively were the respondents 1 to 13 on the original side and respondents 15 and 16 were the writ petitioners. The main point that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the State can proceed against the properties of Abkari defaulters, which are not covered by solvency certificates furnished by them while entering into agreement with the Government, when properties covered by such solvency certificates are available for sale. The brief facts of the case are the following: The writ petitioners were the legal heirs of late T. D. Thampi, who was a colicensee along with five others of Arrack Shop Nos. 58 to 72 of the Cherthala Excise Range during the year 1993-1994. The licensees defaulted to pay the kist amount and proceedings were initiated against them to recover the amount due to the State by taking recourse to revenue recovery proceedings. The properties other than those covered by the solvency certificates furnished by the licensees were also proceeded against. Mr. T. D. Thampi owned other items of property also, which were not covered by the solvency certificate furnished at the time of executing agreement with the Government for grant of licence. One of such properties having an extent of 50 cents was put to sale on 13/08/2007. The sale was preceded by several rounds of litigations before this Court and proceedings before various authorities. It is unnecessary to refer to those details in this case. Immediately after the said sale, on 14/08/2007, respondent No. 15, who is one of the legal heirs of late T. D. Thampi, filed Ext. P9 petition before the District Collector under S. 53 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, (for short, 'the Act') requesting to set aside the sale. The District Collector, by Annexure A1 (5) order dated 01/11/2007 rejected the said petition. But, according to the 15th respondent, a copy of the said order was not served on him and he was also not heard before that order was passed. So, he proceeded on the footing that the said application was pending before the District Collector. While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer by Ext. P10 order, confirmed the sale of the aforementioned 50 cents of land under S. 54 of the Act, on 31/01/2008. Feeling aggrieved by the said confirmation order, respondents 15 and 16, two of the legal heirs of late T. D. Thampi, filed Ext. P12 revision before the Government. In the revision petition also, as was done in Ext. P9, the main contention taken was that, the sale of properties of late T. D. Thampi not covered by the solvency certificate was illegal and unjust, when properties covered by solvency certificates of colicensees were available. Though the sale was made above the upset price, a contention was raised in Ext. P12 to the effect that sale was made for a price which was much lower when compared to the actual price. But, no materials were furnished in Ext. P12 in support of that contention, like actual market price prevailing in the locality and the deficiency in the price obtained. The Land Revenue Commissioner, after hearing both sides, dismissed Ext. P12 revision by Ext. P15 order. In fact, the writ petition was filed, during the pendency of Ext. P12, challenging the revenue recovery notices as also Ext. P10 order of confirmation passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Later, the writ petition was amended, incorporating the challenge against Ext. P15 also.

(2.) THE appellant herein is the person, who purchased the property of T. D. Thampi in the sale conducted on 13/08/2007 for a consideration of Rs. 21,80,000/ -. He paid 15% of the amount immediately and the balance amount within the stipulated time limit of one month.

(3.) THE official respondents and the appellant resisted the prayers in the Writ Petition, by filing detailed counter affidavits. The fact that Ext. P9 was already disposed of by the District Collector was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge by both sides. Therefore, the Writ Petition was allowed, quashing Ext. P10 for the reason that confirmation of the sale cannot be made during the pendency of a petition under S. 53 of the Act. The learned Single Judge also gave consequential directions to the statutory authorities. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the Writ Appeal is preferred.