AMBILY JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 4th respondent to accept basic tax in respect of an extent of 280 acres of land in Kuttanadu Taluk, Kainakary Village (also known as 'R Block Kayal Land'). The refusal on the part of the 4 th respondent appears to be based on Ext.P16 communication of the Government to the District Collector directing him to keep on hold any mutation in respect of the said land and not to permit further transactions in respect of the said land, and Ext.P7 communication dated 21.03.2012 issued by the District Collector to the 4 th respondent on the same lines.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for a disposal of the writ petition are that one Mr. Joseph Murikkan was the owner of 280 acres of land in Kuttanadu Taluk, Kainakary Village in Allappuzha District (the R Block Kayal Land). The said extent of land was taken over from him under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and surrendered to the Government pursuant to the order dated 20.02.1976 of the State Land Board. The said land was thereafter assigned to various agriculturists, following the procedure under the Land Reforms Ceiling Rules 1970 and the Land Assignment Rules, during the years 1977 and 1978. As a consequence, the said agriculturists, numbering approximately 300, were each assigned 65 to 75 cents of land and the assignments were for the specific purpose of carrying on agricultural operations in the land. It would appear that with a view to developing these lands and carrying on coconut cultivation on the said lands, the said agriculturists had approached the Alleppey District Co-operative Bank for the formulation of a scheme for reclaiming the land, and for extension of financial assistance for carrying on the agricultural activities thereon. After obtaining the necessary sanction from the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development ('NABARD' for short), the said District Co-operative Bank sanctioned the loan amount in favour of the agriculturists and disbursal of the said loan amount was through the 5th respondent Bank.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the loan amounts were disbursed to 217 members of the R Block Kayal Land Assignees Association that had been formed in the meanwhile. But the said members, with the exception of one, defaulted on the repayment of loan amounts to the 5 th respondent. The 5th respondent, therefore, approached the District Co-operative Bank seeking its willingness to purchase the said lands in an auction. On the latter refusing to do so, the 5th respondent put up the land for auction through Exts.P3 and P4 notices, and in the absence of any bidder for the lands, the 5 th respondent itself purchased the land, after getting the necessary permission for the same. Ext.P5 sale certificate dated 24.09.2001, would show that the lands in question were purchased by the 5 th respondent. Thereafter, by a resolution dated 28.10.2001, the General Body of the respondent decided to sell the property, so as to repay the loan that they had availed from the District Co- operative Bank. Inasmuch as the attempts of the 5 th respondent to find buyers at the rates fixed by them for the land, failed, they decided through Ext.P8 resolution dated 22.08.2004 to negotiate with bidders for a purchase of the land at the price of Rs.75,34,786/-. Apparently, even at the said price, there were no purchasers for the land. Eventually, the land in question was sold to the petitioners and their nominees at a reduced price of Rupees Sixty Lakhs for which the 5th respondent had obtained the necessary permission from the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, as mandated under the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. The said permission dated 06.7.2004, is seen in Ext.P9 produced along with the writ petition, although the value mentioned in the said permission is a higher value of Rs. 75,34,786/-. in any event, the sale in favour of the petitioners was confirmed, and the petitioners have produced as Ext.P11, a copy of the sale deed that was executed in favour of the 4 th petitioner on 27.01.2006. It is stated that similar sale deeds were executed in favour of the other petitioners and their nominees as well. Pursuant to the aforementioned sale transactions, the 5th respondent appears to have settled the liability with the District Co-operative Bank as is evidenced by Ext.P12 confirmation letter dated 03.05.2006. The fact that the 4 th petitioner obtained the possession certificate and tax receipt in respect of the land from the Revenue Authority is also seen evidenced by Ext.P13 document dated 28.01.2011.