The petitioner stood as surety with respect to sale of the privilege for running a toddy shop by one Sri. N.T. Thripthan. Property belonging to the petitioner having an extent of 2.50 Acres comprised in re-sy No.5 of Eruvassy Village was offered as solvency with respect to the licence granted to the above said Sri. Thripthan. Consequent to default committed by the licencee in payment of amount due with respect to conduct of the shop, revenue recovery steps were initiated against the said property. The petitioner had approached this court in a writ petition praying for a direction to extent the benefit of the 'Amnesty Scheme' introduced as per G.O (P) No.143/2000, dated 30-09-2000, with respect to settlement of Abkari dues. As per Ext.P1 judgment this court observed that an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- recovered from the defaulter is also liable to be credited. It was observed that the total amount due under the 'Amnesty scheme' is Rs.3,88,973/-. Hence it is observed that, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Amnesty Scheme and it was declared accordingly. It is contended that despite such declaration made by this court in Ext.P1, the petitioner was not permitted to settle the arrears under the Amnesty Scheme, on the premise that there are overdues with respect to conduct of the toddy shop.
2. Meanwhile the above said property belonging to the petitioner was sold in public auction consequent to the revenue recovery proceedings initiated and the Government have bid land in auction the property for a sum of Rs.1/-, since there was no bidders. The sale conducted in this regard on 04-09-1993 was confirmed in favour of the Government by virtue of Ext.P7 and the property remained as 'bought-in-land' in the custody of the Government. The present writ petition was filed after Ext.P1 judgment when the 3rd respondent had initiated steps for auctioning the right to collect usufructus from the above said 'bought-in- land'. The petitioner contended that the action on the part of the respondents in not permitting remittance of amount under the Amnesty scheme, and in auctioning the right to collect usufructus from the land in question, is purely illegal. Hence the original petition was filed seeking directions to restrain the 3rd respondent from conducting any auction with respect to the right to take usufructus from the property. Inter alia, the petitioner sought for direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to comply with Ext.P1 judgment.
3. During pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was permitted to make payment of the balance amount under the 'Amnesty Scheme'. It is evident from Exts.P3 to P5 receipts that the petitioner had cleared payment of the entire amounts due. Exhibit P6 is the certificate issued by the 2nd respondent to the effect that the petitioner completely cleared the Abkari arrears due against him and hence he is not the defaulter. On that basis the petitioner had amended the writ petition incorporating reliefs by way of direction to the respondents to re-convey the property which is bid in auction by the Government.
4. It is evident that property having 2.5 Acres in Re- sy No.5-part of Eruvassy village was bid in auction by the Government on 04-09-1993 for a nominal value of Rs.1/-. The sale was confirmed through a proceedings issued by the Assistant Collector, Thalassery dated 22-05-1994. The petitioner was permitted to repay the arrears under the Amnesty Scheme by virtue of Ext.P1 judgment passed by this court on 28-03-2006. It is evident that the petitioner had remitted the entire Amnesty amount during the year 2008, lastly on 10-11-2008. As per the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent the property could not be realised since it become 'bought-in-land'. It would have been released if the petitioner had cleared the arrears and submitted application within a period of 2 years from the date of the purchase of the property by the Government.
5. However, the question whether the property can be re-conveyed in view of settlement of arrears effected through the Amnesty Scheme, is a question which basically need to be considered by the State Government. The petitioner has not approached any authorities under the Government seeking re-conveyance of the property on the basis that he had cleared payment of the entire arrears under the Amnesty Scheme. Hence this court is of the opinion that the petitioner can be given liberty to approach the Government seeking re-conveyance of the property purchased for a nominal price of Rs.1/-, based on the settlement of arrears made under the Amnesty Scheme.
6. If the petitioner approaches the Government in any appropriate petition seeking re-conveyance of the land in question, narrating the above mentioned circumstances, the Government shall consider such request and shall take an appropriate decision after affording opportunity of personal hearing.
7. If any such representation is submitted by the petitioner the same shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of such representation.
AMG Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
True copy