Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1944 WA NO. 967 OF 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 25553/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT: MATHEW MATHAI S/O.MATHAI, NJARAKOLLIL, KOZHA P.O., KURAVALANGADU, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.P.R.VENKATESH RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 4 ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 5 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR REVENUE RECOVERY, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 6 THE TAHSILDAR R.R MEENACHIL, PALA 686 631. 7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KURAVILANGAD, MEENACHIL TALUK, 686 631.
BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL() SRI.S.RENJITH-SPL.GP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ALEXANDER THOMAS & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ. ================== (arising out of the judgment dated 13.01.2016 in WP(C) No.25553/2014) ================== Dated this the 25th day of July, 2022
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J The subject matter of challenge in this intra-court appeal instituted under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act is the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 13.01.2016 dismissing the instant writ petition (Civil) WP(C) No.25553/2014. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the WP(C) and the respondents herein are the respondents in the WP(C).
2. Heard Sri.P.R.Venkatesh, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant in the WA/petitioner in the WP(C) and Sri.S.Renjith, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in the WA/respondents in the WP(C). The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Civil), WP(C) No.25553/2014 filed by the appellant herein are as follows: “(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs orders or directions commanding the respondents to order re-conveyance of the 69.98 Ares of land constituted the 45 Ares in Survey No.348/2, 17.30 Ares in Sy. No.348/3 and 7.68 Ares in Sy.No.348/5, Block No.8 of Kuravilangad Village, Meenachil Taluk to the petitioner.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ
orders or direction commanding the respondents to drop all Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the 98.40 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No.521/1, Block No.26, of Neezhoor Village, Vaikom Taluk.
(iii) Declare that the property of 69.98 Ares of land in
Sy.No.348/2, 348/3 and 348/5, Block No.8 of Kuravilangad Vilalge, Meenachil Taluk purchased by the Government in revenue auction is liable to be re-conveyed to the petitioner and therefore it cannot be distributed to anybody else.
(iv) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order
or directions quashing Ext.P10.
(v) Direct the respondents to consider and dispose of Ext.P16 amd P18 representation.
(vi) To grant such other reliefs which the petitioner may seek from time to time and this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to be granted in the circumstances of the case.”
3. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides has
rendered the impugned judgment on 13.01.2016 dismissing the instant Writ Petition (Civil) on the ground that the matter in issue is covered against the petitioner as per the dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Kerala [2012 (2) KLT 164] and that therefore, since the request for re- conveyance was made by the writ petitioner after the maximum permissible period of five years, there is no question of the petitioner having any legal right to demand for re-conveyance of the bought in land proceedings finalized in accordance with Section 50 of the Revenue Recovery Act. A brief reference to the facts of this case would be pertinent.
4. The petitioner was in arrears under the Abkari Act and the
Rules framed thereunder in respect of the transactions that occurred for the financial years from 1987 onwards and since the arrears could not be cleared by him, the subject property having a total extent of 69.98 ares, roughly about 1.74 acres of land became the subject matter of sale under the Revenue Recovery Act and after due process, since there was no interested purchasers, the land was purchased by the Revenue Department at a nominal cost of Rs.1/- in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 50 of the Revenue Recovery Act on 07.10.1997. The above said sale of the property and its confirmation in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 50 of the RR Act has taken place on 07.10.1997 and 11.02.1998 respectively. Such land purchased by the Government at a nominal price of Rs.1/- in accordance with Section 50 of the RR Act is known in Revenue Departmental Parlance as “bought- in-land”. Much thereafter, the Government offered an amnesty scheme for clearance of balance dues. It is common ground that the appellant took benefit of the amnesty scheme and Ext.P3 was the notice issued by the 4th respondent under the Amnesty scheme intimating to the petitioner the amount payable under the said Amnesty Scheme. The petitioner has paid the requisite amount as per Ext.P4 challan dated 04.07.2008 for the said requisite amount of Rs.1,97,348/-. Thereafter,
placing reliance on the judgments of this Court as in Exts.P15 judgment
dated 25.06.2009 in WP(C) No.33632/2008, Ext.P7 representation dated 19.09.2008 as followed in Ext.P16 representation dated 10.08.2011 were submitted requesting the Government that the subject property purchased by the Revenue Department as bought-in-land may be re-conveyed to the petitioner since petitioner has cleared the requisite arrears under the Amnesty scheme on the basis of Ext.P3 and P4. The said plea of the petitioner for re-conveyance of the land as per Ext.P15 has been rejected by the 1st respondent competent authority of
the State Government in the Revenue Department as per Ext.P10 order
dated 01.12.2008 on the ground that going by the norms of the Government as per Government order dated 09.02.1968 as amended by subsequent Government order dated 22.03.1996, the maximum time limit permissible for re-conveyance of the land is within five years from the date of conclusion of sale in Revenue Recovery proceedings and that in the instant case, the said maximum period has already expired long back and hence the plea for re-conveyance cannot be entertained. It is this rejection order at Ext.P10 that is essentially under challenge in the above writ proceedings. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides has rejected the prayers of the writ petitioner mainly by following the dictum laid by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case in [2012 (2) KLT 164]. In Ashok Kumar's case (supra), the learned Single Judge has followed the dictum laid down in paragraph no.3 of the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case in State of
Kerala & Others Vs. George Jacob [2010 (3) KHC 381].
5. The Division Bench of this Court in George Jacob's case
(supra) [2010 3 KHC 381] in paragraph no.3 thereof has held that the Government norms conferring a right to the party for re-conveyance of the land after finalization of the revenue sale of the property under Section 50 of the RR Act is one which should be invoked within a maximum period of five years from the date of confirmation of the sale in the Revenue Recovery proceedings. In paragraph 3 of George Jacob's case (supra), the Division Bench has noted that two main Government orders/Government notifications govern the field, one issued on 09.02.1968, which was substantially amended by a subsequent Government order issued on 22.03.1996 and as per the former Government order, the period was only upto two years, which was enhanced by the latter Government order issued on 22.03.1996, whereby the maximum outer time limit for seeking re-conveyance is one that should be exercised within a period of five years from the date of confirmation of the sale by Revenue Recovery proceedings. In the instant case, the confirmation of sale and Revenue Recovery proceedings was on 11.02.1998 and the maximum period of five years has elapsed long ago. A subsequent Division Bench of this Court in the
judgment rendered on 02.11.2018 in WA No.1019/2018 in the case in
S.Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Kerala & Others, has held that the issue regarding the legal right of the party to claim re-conveyance is settled by paragraph 3 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in George Jacob's case (supra) [2010 (3) KHC 381]=[2010(3) KLT 483]=[ILR 2010 (3) KER 486]. However, the subsequent Division Bench decision of this Court in S.Ashok Kumar's case (supra) has noted that in paragraph 4 of George Jacob's case (supra), it was found that the respondent authority has credited an amount of Rs.8,44,800/- towards the dues of the defaulter party therein to be adjusted on the interest portion, taking it as notional value of the property and the defaulter therein had later settled the entire dues under the amnesty scheme, it was found that in having settled the dues under the amnesty scheme, which also stipulate the withdrawal of RR proceedings, the defaulter had sought for cancellation of RR proceedings as also the reconveyance of the land purchased in the name of Government. Therein, the Division Bench held that there could be no cancellation effected in the RR proceedings and also in view of the time limit of five years mentioned in the abovesaid Government norms for re- conveyance of the property and hence re-conveyance was thus found to be not legally feasible. However in paragraph no.4 of George Jacob's case (supra), the Division Bench assessed the matter on the basis of equity jurisdiction and found that since the entire dues were paid up, it was ordered that the subject property be re-conveyed to the party on deposit of the afore amount of Rs.844800/-, which is the notional value of the property assessed and he had applied for the interest for settling off a portion of the interest due. Accordingly, the Division Bench of this Court in George Jacob's case (supra), had set aside the bought-in- land proceedings finalized under Section 50 of the RR Act and Government was ordered to re-convey the property as can be seen from a reading of paragraph 4 of the judgment in George Jacob's case (supra). It would be pertinent to refer to the contents of paragraphs 3 & 4 of the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in George Jacob's case (supra) [2010 (3) KLT 381] which read as follows:
“3. The amnesty scheme admittedly entitles the respondent for settlement of liability and it was in fact granted to him by waiving accrued interest of around Rs.58 lakhs and on collection of the principal amount of Rs.27,61,131/-. So far as revenue recovery proceedings are concerned, Ext.P2 amnesty scheme states as follows: “Revenue recovery action initiated if any will be withdrawn in these cases and collection charges shall be waived.” The question to be considered is whether withdrawal of revenue recovery action involves automatic cancellation of revenue sale made in recovery proceedings. Government Pleader submitted that once sale is made under Section 50 of the Act whereunder Government purchased the property for rupee one and when the sale is confirmed, it is like a sale made to a stranger which cannot be interfered through executive orders issued by the Government under amnesty scheme. Counsel for the respondent contended that the very purpose of settling liability under the amnesty scheme is to regain the lost property and so long as the purchaser is Government, Ext.P2 scheme entitles the respondent for reconveyance of the property after settlement of liability under amnesty scheme. We are unable to accept this contention of the respondent because Ext.P2 scheme does not provide for cancellation of sale effected under the Revenue Recovery Act. Withdrawal of revenue recovery action contemplated under Ext.P2 order can only mean that there will be no further revenue recovery proceedings and it does not invalidate revenue recovery proceedings that have culminated in sale and confirmation of sale of property. It is to be noted that for recovery of the very same arrears, the co-licencee's property was sold to a stranger and such stranger has obtained title over the property which is not sought to be unsettled by it's owner based on the amnesty benefit availed by the respondent. So far as sale of property is concerned, it makes no difference whether purchaser is the Government under Section 50 or whether the sale is to a stranger because title in both cases pass on to the purchaser. Therefore, unless the amnesty scheme provides for reconveyance of property retained by the Government as bought in land, the court cannot order reconveyance to the defaulter who has settled the liability under amnesty scheme. Long before Ext.P2, Government had issued several orders on the subject, two of which are produced as Exts.R1(a) dated 9.2.1968 and Ext.R1(b) dated 22.3.1996. In these two Government orders what is stated is that property purchased by the Government and retained as bought-in- land could be reconveyed only if application is made within two years from such sale and only if defaulter clears arrears with interest or in the alternative, the market value of the land. The latest decision of the Government which is a Cabinet decision produced in court shows that even under amnesty scheme, bought-in-land has to be dealt with by the Revenue Department or atleast in consultation with the Revenue Department. Government certainly has the authority to reconvey land purchased by it in revenue sale and retained as bought-in-land on the defaulter satisfying Government Orders in regard to reconveyance. However, in this case we do not
find any specific provision in Ext.P2 amnesty scheme for concellation of sale of property in recovery proceedings by Government to itself under Section 50 of the Act or a provision for reconveyance of such property to the defaulter on settlement of liability under amnesty scheme. We are, therefore, not in a position to uphold the finding of the learned Single Judge declaring respondent's entitlement for reconveyance of the bought in land under Ext.P2.
4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Assistant
Commissioner of Excise while granting settlement benefit to him has reduced interest amount by crediting the amount of Rs.8,44,800/- adjusted by the recovery authority towards notional value of the respondent's property which indicates that on settlement of liability, property will be reconveyed to him. He has also referred to Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) proceedings wherein the Government decided to reconvey the property to him and only thereafter based on a legal advice from the Advocate General, this belated Writ Appeal is filed. According to counsel for the respondent, the intention of the Government is clear from the amnesty scheme and the subsequent proceedings, though issued after judgment of this court. It is also contended that only on the bonafide belief of getting back the property, the respondent had deposited the massive amount of above Rs.27 lakhs. Therefore, the contention of the respondent is that on equitable grounds, the respondent is entitled to relief, though not strictly based on Ext.P2 amnesty scheme. It is a settled position that this court in the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can certainly mould relief to meet the ends of justice. In this context we notice that after purchase of the defaulter's property on 2.3.1995 and after taking possession on 8.12.1995 Government has not been able to earn any income from a mature rubber plantation for the last 15 years. It is well known that rubber is the most profitable crop in the State and if yield was taken in the course of last 15 years, much of the liability would have been set off. The Government has under it's arm even Rubber plantation company and if Government really wanted, it could have utilised the service of any of it's agencies for taking yield. Therefore, we feel the callous indifference of the Government officials has led to Government sustaining loss. Amnesty itself is admission of Government's inability to recover arrears from defaulters and when it is granted, we feel defaulters should be allowed to enjoy the full benefit of the same. However, in this case we notice that the respondent was granted a benefit of Rs.8,44,800/- towards interest liability which is only a notional amount representing the value of the property as on 13.11.2001. At any time in the course of 15 years the Government could have sold the property by private sale or otherwise and recovered the value. It is also to be noted that a co- licencee's property was sold in 1997 and an amount of around Rs.5.92 lakhs recovered was adjusted towards interest liability. Therefore, we feel Government is entitled to recover atleast notional value of the interest credited i.e. Rs.8,44,800/-. We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal in part by modifying the judgment of the learned
Single Judge directing reconveyance of the bought in land to the respondent on the respondent remitting Rs.8,44,800/- without any interest or cost within a period of one month from today.”
6. The Division Bench of this Court in the subsequent decision
in S.Ashok Kumar's case (supra) (WA No.1019/2018) has also placed reliance on paragraph 3 of George Jacob's case (supra), and has held that the party cannot claim legal right for re-conveyance if it is made after the expiry of five years from the date of confirmation of the sale in the RR proceedings, but that the equitable jurisdiction could be exercised by the writ Court as broadly envisaged in paragraph 4 of George Jacob's case (supra). Ultimately, the Division Bench of this Court in S.Ashok Kumar's case (supra), has ordered that the due amount to be paid by the appellant therein would be Rs.3,44,743/-, ie, the amount after deducting what has been paid under the amnesty scheme. It will be pertinent to refer to the contents of paragraphs 5 to 7 of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in S.Ashok Kumar's case (supra) which reads as follows:
“5. In the present case, we see that there were proceedings initiated by the Sales tax authorities for the assessment year 1992-93, 95-96 and 96-97 against the petitioner. The demands raised on the assessment orders were taken for recovery and proceedings initiated against the property of the petitioner. We called for the records of the revenue recovery sale proceedings which were placed before us by the learned Special Government Pleader. We see from the records that this was not the only dues on which recovery was proceeded against, on the subject
property. There were also other dues which were pending against the petitioner. It is also seen from Ext.P6 that there were assessment orders passed against the father of the petitioner relating to earlier years which were produced as Exts.P1 and P2 in WP(C) No.25573/2010. Be that as it may, we see from the records that the proceedings where sales proceedings were scheduled on various dates on which there were no bidders. It is also seen from the records that no bidders turned up, on the various dates on which auction was held, obviously for reason of various other recovery also pending against the property. In any event, on 28.02.2005 the sale was again adjourned since there were no bidders. The sale was adjourned to 14.03.2005 within the 60 day period as provided under Section 50. On 14.3.2005 also there were no bidders and hence the property was purchased under Section 50 for a nominal amount of Re.1/-. The said proceedings were confirmed on 2.2.2006.
6. It is subsequent to the sale proceedings and the
confirmation of sale that Ext.P1 order was passed on 09.05.2006. We also see from the assessment order that there was a remand made and the assessment orders in appeal were set aside for reason of no notice having been issued to the assessee. Further it is also to be noticed that there were demands pending as against the father of the petitioner which was also liable to be recovered from the property. We agree with the Division Bench judgment in George Jacob that the facts of the case does not warrant any revocation of bought-in-land proceedings. However, we are of the opinion that the facts herein would also commend us to invoke the equitable jurisdiction as available to this Court under Article 226, especially noticing the fact that the petitioner had been continued in the property, all these years almost 12 years from the date of confirmation of the bought-in-land proceedings. In such circumstance, we directed the learned Government Pleader to file a statement as to the exact dues pending as on the date on which the Amnesty Scheme was applied, without giving the benefit under the Amnesty scheme. An affidavit has been filed showing the amounts due would be Rs.3,44,743/-. This amount is after deducting what has been paid under the Amnesty Scheme.
7. In such circumstances, on equitable consideration
the petitioner would be granted a time of five months from today to make the deposit of Rs.3,44,743/-. If the said amounts are not deposited on or before 02.04.2019, the bought-in-land proceedings would be confirmed. If the petitioner pays the said amount on or before the stipulated date before the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent shall accept the amounts in satisfaction of the sales tax dues of
the petitioner and his father and cancel the bought-in-land proceedings and there shall be no separate collection charges levied on the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is made clear that the amounts paid in consequence of the directions herein satisfies only the sales tax dues in respect of which revenue recovery proceedings were taken; in the course of which the property was bought in the name of the Government for a nominal amount of Re.1/-. An attachment or charge with respect to any other dues would subsist. ”
7. We have also gone through the case papers in relation to the
WA No.967/2016. We have also gone through the case papers in S.Ashok Kumar's case (supra) (WA No.1019/2018) to appreciate the modalities of arriving at the figure of Rs.3,44,743/- as ordered in paragraph 6 of that judgment. The details of the computation of the said figure are discernible from the additional affidavit dated 27.10.2018 filed by the 6th respondent in WA No.1019/2018. A reading of the said additional affidavit in that case would show that the total principal amount due as on 30.06.2008 (date of invocation of amnesty scheme) is Rs.90,222/- and the interest due upto 30.06.2008 was Rs.2,38,260/-. Further details of computation are given in page 2 & 3 of the said affidavit in WA No.1019/2018 which reads as follows: “Principal amount due as on 30.06.2008 :Rs.90,222.00 Interest due as on 30.06.2008 :Rs.2,38,260.00/- Total :Rs.3,28,482.00/- Less Amount paid on 30.06.2008 :Rs.6,680.00/- Balance due :Rs.3,21,802.00 Add Interest from 07.07.2008 to 31.09.2010 (27%) (Rs.90,222x27%) :Rs.24,359.00 :Rs.3,46,161.00 Less Amount paid on 01.10.2010 :Rs.20,832.00 :3,25,329.00 Add Interest from 01.10.2010 to 31.12.2013 (27%) (Rs.90,222x27%) :Rs. 24,359.00 :Rs.3,49,688.00 Less Amount stated to be paid on 31.12.2013 (No records in the file) :Rs.27,273.00 :Rs.2,92,415.00 Add Interest from 01.04.2014 to 31.10.2018 (58%) (Rs.90,222 x 58%) :Rs.52,328.00 Total due as on 31.10.2018 :Rs.3,44,743.00 ===========
8. Later, this Court has passed order dated 03.12.2021 in the present WA No.967/2016 which reads as follows:
“As we find that the writ appeal can be disposed of in tune with the judgment of this Court in WA No.1019/2018, the Government Pleader is directed to file a statement indicating the liability of the petitioner as on the date on which the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme was extended to the petitioner, without giving the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. The amount less the amount already paid by the petitioner under the Amnesty Scheme shall also be indicated in the statement.”
9. In pursuance thereof, the respondents have filed a computation statement as on 13.12.2021 which reads as follows:
“1. As per the direction of this Hon’ble Court, the Special Government Pleader had filed the above statement calculating the due as per directions contained in W.A. No. 1019/2018. On a perusal of the calculation statement filed in the above appeal and the additional affidavit dated 27.10.2018 in W.A. No. 1019/2018 the following differences in the calculation method could be detected:
2. The main objection from the side of the appellant herein is
that the direction in W.A. No. 1019/2018 was to arrive at the amount, as also in the judgment of this Hon’ble Court reported in 2010 (3) KHC 381 (State of Kerala vs. George Jacob) the actual sum due as on the date on which the Amnesty Scheme was applied without giving the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme. This will be clear from para 6 in the judgment in W.A. No. 1019/2018. Going by that direction, according to the appellant the interest calculated on the principal sum of Rs. 2,61,034/- at the rate of 18% for 4910 days from 4.7.2008 to 13.12.2021 has to be completely waived. In such circumstances, the amount that will be then actually due will be Rs. 9,11,160/-.
3. However, as per calculation in W.A. No. 1019/2018,
which was apparently accepted in the judgment dated 2.11.2018, had adopted a different method in computing the interest component as well as the rate of interest, which was only at the rate of 12% per annum. Moreover, in the instant case, from 27.9.1998, the State is in absolute possession and enjoyment of an extent of 69.98 Ares in Kuravalangad Village, Meenachil Taluk, taking the usufructs from the property, as will be seen from para 5 in the affidavit dated 31.7.2018 submitted by the 2nd respondent. There are rubber trees, coconut trees and coco trees and they auctioned the usufructs from 2001-2017.
3. As per the calculation seen in W.A. No. 1019/2018, the
interest is calculated at the rate of 12% per annum for the number of months at the rate of 1% per month. For the period from 7.7.2008 to 31.9.2010 (30.09.2010) (inclusive of both months) it comes to 27 months. Thus 27% has been taken for the total period of 27 months and arrived at the interest of Rs. 24,359/- on the principal sum of Rs. 90,222/-. Similarly, for the period from 1.10.2010 to 31.12.2013 which comes to 27 months equivalent rate of 27% is taken. Then the next period after the reported payment on 31.12.2013, the interest is to start from 1.1.2014 upto 31.10.2018 which would then be 58 months and
thus 58% has been taken. By a typographical error instead of 1.1.2014, it is stataed as 1.4.2014. Thus, the figure is arrived at Rs. 52,328/-.
4. Now in the present appeal, they have adopted interest
calculation day wise. If the method adopted in W.A. No. 1019/2018 is taken, then for the period from 4.7.2018 to 13.12.2021 altogether 162 months will have to be taken. In that case, if 1% per month rate is adopted, the amount of interest on the principal sum of Rs. 2,61,034/- will come to Rs. 4,22,875/-. Then deducting the said sum from Rs.6,32,060/- will come to Rs. 2,09,185/-. (This is the excess differential sum claimed from the appellant herein). If month wise calculation as in the other case is adopted at the rate of 18%, it will come to Rs. 6,34,312.62. Hence this will be the differences if the calculation in the other case is adopted in the instant case. An excess amount of Rs. 2,09,185/- is claimed in the above appeal. Collection charge of 5% is liable to be excluded which is not seen included in the calculation statement in W.A. No. 1019/2018. This Hon’ble Court may take note of this differences in the method adopted in the two statements from the side of the respondents and make appropriate orders deducting Rs. 2,09,185/- from the total amount claimed now by the respondent, viz. Rs. 15,43,220/- and fix the sum of Rs. 13,34,035/- and by waiving the collection charge of 5% also and grant sufficient time to the appellant to deposit the said sum.
1. For easy reference the calculation is given below: Total Amount due on 4.7.2008 when Amnesty Scheme applied and payment made after waiving interest from 4.7.2008 to 13.12.2021 : Rs.11,08,508/- Amount paid on 4.7.2008 : Rs. 1,97,348/- Balance due : Rs. 9,11,160/-
If interest from 4.7.2008 to 13.12.2021 is calculated @ 12% per annum monthlywise as in W.A. No. 1019/2018 interest for the said period comes to : Rs. 4,22,875/- Total amount then due : Rs. 2,61,034/- : Rs. 6,50,126/- : Rs. 4,22,875/- : Rs.13,34,035/- ============ If interest taken for the period from 14.12.2021 to 21.7.2022 on Rs. 2,61,034/- @ 12% per annum would come to : Rs. 18,881/- Total amount if interest added @ 12% per annum from 14.12.2021 till 21.7.2022. : Rs.13,34,035/- : Rs. 18,881/- : Rs.13,52,916/- Interest @ 12% per annum from 22.7.2022 to 30.9.2022 : Rs. 5,900/- Total : Rs.13,58,816/- ============ ”
10. The appellants have filed a computation statement objecting
to some of the computations in the one given by the respondents. These aspects are discernible from the statement/objections dated 21.07.2022 filed by the appellants with reference to the computation statement given by the respondents as on 13.12.2021. In the said statement of the appellant, it is pointed out that the interest figure is computed in the statement of the respondents on the basis of 1% per month and that therefore, the annual interest rate would be 12% per annum. There is no dispute regarding those aspects between the parties. The main dispute raised by the appellants is that the interest approved for 491 days for the principal amount of Rs.2,61,034/- as on 04.07.2008 is computed at the rate of 18% per annum for the period from 04.07.2008 up to 13.12.2021. This the appellants would contend, could be only 12% per annum as Section 6 of the Revenue Recovery Act mandates that the interest rate is 12% per annum. There is no dispute that Section 6 of the RR Act mandates that the interest rate is computed at the rate of 12% per annum, unless otherwise prescribed and there is no case for the respondents that a higher rate of interest has so far been prescribed in any notification. Hence the appellant is right in contending that the interest rate for the period from 04.07.2008 upto 13.12.2021 for the principal amount of Rs.2,61,034/- could be computed only at the rate of 12% per annum. As a matter of fact, the actual computation made in S.Ashok Kumar's case (supra), (WA No.1019/2018) is also on the basis of 1% per month, which would come to 12% per annum. The respondents does not have any dispute regarding that. However, the interest rate has been computed by the respondents in their statement given as on 13.12.2021, only till that date, viz, 13.12.2021, we have suggested to the appellant that the interest should be so computed till 30.09.2022, as the appellant may require at least two month's time to clear the due amounts. Of course, a larger contention was also made by the appellants that in the case in George Jacob's case (supra), no interest was computed after the amnesty scheme. However, we apprised the appellant that since the respondent authorities are insisting for interest as above, and since the appellant otherwise may not have a legal right in view of expiry of maximum period of five years, it may not be legally feasible to accede to the abovesaid request of the appellant not to compute interest after the payment of the due amount as per the amnesty scheme as on 04.07.2008 in this case. Appellant is also agreeable to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a., under Section 6 of the RR Act for the period upto 30.09.2022. Hence, we have requested both sides to give revised computation statement in that regard. The appellants have given their revised computation statement dated 21.07.2022, and the computation details are given in paragraph 6 of page 4 of the said revised statement dated 21.07.2022 which reads as follows: “For easy reference the calculation is given below:
Total Amount due on 4.7.2008 when Amnesty Scheme applied and payment made after waiving interest from 4.7.2008 to 13.12.2021 : Rs.11,08,508/- Amount paid on 4.7.2008 : Rs. 1,97,348/- Balance due : Rs. 9,11,160/- If interest from 4.7.2008 to 13.12.2021 is calculated @ 12% per annum monthlywise as in W.A. No. 1019/2018 Interest for the said period comes to : Rs. 4,22,875/- Total amount then due : Rs. 2,61,034/- : Rs. 6,50,126/- : Rs. 4,22,875/- : Rs.13,34,035/- ============ If interest taken for the period from 14.12.2021 to 21.7.2022 on Rs. 2,61,034/- @ 12% per annum would come to : Rs. 18,881/- Total amount if interest added @ 12% per annum from 14.12.2021 till 21.7.2022. : Rs.13,34,035/- : Rs. 18,881/- : Rs.13,52,916/- Interest @ 12% per annum from 22.7.2022 to 30.9.2022 : Rs. 5,900/- Total : Rs.13,58,816/-” ============
11. Hence the total amount to be paid by the petitioner for
getting the benefit of reconveyance as ordered in S.Asok Kumar's case (supra) (WA No.1019/2018) would come to Rs.13,58,816/- as on 30.09.2022. The petitioner will have to pay the said amount on or before 30.09.2022.
12. Apart from these aspects, there are certain other aspects also,
which would persuade us to invoke the equity jurisdiction in this case. It is common ground that the subject property has been taken over by the respondents and they have also collected the income from the usurfructs of the property for the period from 2001 up to 2017 as can be seen from the admitted pleadings of the respondents. The usurfructs were duly collected and put to auction sale and income was also enjoined by the respondents. Further, yet another aspect that is relevant is as to whether the claim of the appellant is barred by inordinate delay and laches. In the matter relating to equity, the Court has to be vigilant to ensure that stale claims are not entertained especially in matters of this nature for re- conveyance of bought-in-land. From the admitted pleadings, it is seen that the amounts due under the Amnesty Scheme was cleared by the petitioner as per Ext.P3 on 04.07.2008. Immediately thereafter, the appellant has submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 19.09.2008, before the Commissioner of Land Revenue for getting the benefit of re- conveyance of the bought-in-land. This was followed by Ext.P9. The reply thereto has been given by the Commissioner for Land Revenue as per Ext.P8 on 04.11.2008. By Ext.P9 letter dated 26.09.2008, the Commissioner for Land Revenue has forwarded the request of the petitioner to the District Collector for examination. Thereafter by Ext.P10
order dated 01.12.2008, the 1st respondent has rejected the plea of the
petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 representation before the Finance Department of the Government on 10.08.2011. Even before that, the petitioner has filed WP(C) No.20505/2009 in the year 2009 which was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P17 judgment rendered on 24.01.2012, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Government. Petitioner had thereafter submitted Ext.P18 representation dated 20.03.2012. Petitioner had secured interim order from the Government as per Ext.P19 on 22.03.2012. Thereafter petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant WP(C) No.25553/2014 on 30.09.2014. Of course there is some delay as between the filing of the last representation and the institution of the present WP(C). But for that, the petitioner has been vigilantly prosecuting his remedies. Hence, we are of the view that the claim of the petitioner for equitable relief is not in any manner barred by inordinate delay and laches. We say so, as the learned Special Government Pleader has raised his apprehension that in cases of this nature, the party may come very belatedly, and therefore, the respondents could be otherwise put to unnecessary hardship and difficulties. We make it clear that resort to an equity jurisdiction in cases of this nature would be available only to parties who have been vigilantly prosecuting the remedies, and in cases where their claims are barred by inordinate delay and laches, there is no question of the writ Court, invoking discretion for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In the instant case, we find that the petitioner has duly cleared the Amnesty Scheme and he is even prepared to pay more amount of what has been ordered in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in George Jacob's case supra, and he is prepared to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as mandated in Section 6 of the RR Act, up to 30.09.2022. Hence, for all these reasons, we are of the view, that the equitable remedy could be extended to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case. What remains is the plea of the respondents for an additional amount of Revenue Recovery Collection charges at the rate of 5%. The said similar plea has been repelled by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph no.7 of S.Ashok Kumar's case supra, WA No.1019/2018.
13. Hence it may not be just and proper to direct that petitioner
should pay collection charges at the rate of 5% of the amount. In view of these aspects it is ordered that petitioner may pay the abovesaid requisite amount of Rs.13,58,816/- without any further delay, at any rate on or before 30.09.2022. In the event of the petitioner paying the said amount, then the 6th respondent Tahasildar (RR) will accept the said amount in satisfaction of the revenue dues of the petitioner and cancel the bought- in-land proceedings in respect of the subject property and there shall be no separate collection charges levied on the petitioner under the RR Act. However, in case the petitioner does not pay the requisite amount on or before 30.09.2022, then the bought-in-land proceedings will stand confirmed. These crucial aspects of the matters have not been duly taken note of in the rendering of the impugned judgment in this case. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 13.01.2016 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) No.25553/2014 will stand set aside. With these observations and directions, the above WA will stand disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE Nsd