B. Raju V. The Asst. Commissioner (Appeals), Agricultural Income-Tax and Sales-Tax, Kozhikode and The Agricultural Income-Tax and Sales-Tax Officer, Mananthavady and The District Collector, Wayanad and The Tahsildar, Mananthavady and M.K. Abdul Rasheed

WP(C)/2492/2006

AI Insights

In this case, B. Raju, the petitioner, challenged the order confirming the sale of his property by the Tahasildar, which was sold to recover dues owed to the government. The property sale was part of revenue proceedings initiated due to the petitioner's failure to pay a sum of INR 5,00,000 as directed by a previous court judgment. Despite being given several opportunities to settle his dues, the petitioner defaulted on multiple occasions, leading to the sale of his property for INR 21,25,000, significantly above the upset and market value. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the petitioner's repeated non-compliance with payment directives.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690098 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WP(C) No. 26591/04
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUNJACHAN; SUNNY MATHEW
• Assessee Lawyers: R SUDHISH; P P BALAN
• Keywords: Default Payment; Legal Grounds; Property sale; Writ petition; Revenue sale

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/17TH JYAISHTA 1934 WP(C).No. 2492 of 2006 (V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------------- B.RAJU, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, RAMAGIRI ESTATE, TIRUNELLI AMSOM DESOM OF MANANTHAVADI TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH SRI.P.P.BALAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONR (APPEALS), AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX AND SALES-TAX, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX AND SALES-TAX OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,WAYANAD. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAVADY. 5. M.K.ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.M.MOIDEEN HAJI, THANNIYALLATHIL HOUSE, POONOOR (VIA), THAMARASSERY, CALICUT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.2492/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 P2 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 P3 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-00 P4 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT P6 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 P7 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 P8 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-00 P9 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-91 P10 COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 9/1/2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P11 COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD P12 COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 25/2/2006 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH D.D. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(1) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.26591/04. R5(2) COPY OF THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.2492 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7 th day of June, 2012 JUDGMENT In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the sale of the property belonging to the petitioner. The 4th respondent/Tahasildar had on consideration of the facts and circumstances involved in the matter confirmed the sale and dismissed the application of the petitioner. It is contended that the 5th respondent managed to bid the auction without any competition. 2. The government filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that when revenue proceedings were initiated earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court and by judgment dated 10.09.2004 in W.P.(C)No.26591 of 2004 this Court directed the petitioner to remit a sum of `5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh only) within one month and also directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within two months. In the light of the said judgment the proposed sale to be held on 8.10.2004 was adjourned. The petitioner did not comply with the directions issued by this Court. Again the sale was notified to be held on W.P.(C) No.2492 of 2006 -:2:- 20.11.2004. Since there were no bidders, the sale was adjourned to 26.11.2004 and further adjourned to 6.12.2004. The petitioner in the meantime obtained an order from Minister of Revenue agreeing to pay the defaulted amounts in 10 equal monthly instalments. On account of the said direction the sale was kept in abeyance. The petitioner again defaulted payment of the instalments and since there was refusal to pay the defaulted amounts further proceedings were taken. Again the petitioner approached the Government and obtained an instalment facility of 20 months which was also defaulted. Consequently the revenue proceedings were continued and property of the petitioner was sold on 21.11.2005 for `21,25,000/- at the rate of `70,833/- per acre. The said amount according to the Government was much higher than the market value. The upset price was `60,000/- per acre and the market value was `40,000/- per acre. The purchaser had paid the amount to the revenue authorities. By virtue of Ext.P10, the revenue sale had been confirmed. 3. The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P10 and further proceedings with respect to the above revenue sale. 4. Having gone through the contentions urged in the writ petition and on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner it is W.P.(C) No.2492 of 2006 -:3:- seen that there had been consistent defaults on the part of the petitioner in respect of the payment of the aforesaid amount. Several opportunities were granted to the petitioner by the judgment of this Court and by orders of the Government . But he did not comply with any of the directions of the Court or the Government. Petitioner committed default of instalment facility and the Revenue authorities had the only option to proceed with the sale of the property. 5. During the pendency of this writ petition this Court by interim order dated 27.03.2006 had directed the petitioner to pay `22,40,000/- and `57,000/- towards interest (total amount of `22,97,000/-) in order to avoid the sale. It is said that no such payment had been affected by the petitioner. In that view of the matter I do not think that the petitioner deserves any further indulgence. No legal grounds are urged for setting aside the sale. Hence there is no merit in the writ petition. Under these circumstances this writ petition is dismissed. A.M.Shaffique, Judge. sj "