J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of late Velayudhan and late Chinnamma Velayudhan. Late Velayudhan and late Chinnamma Velayudhan were licensees in respect of certain toddy shops of Erattupetta Range for the year 1988-89. For the recovery of the following arrears, revenue recovery proceedings was initiated against the parents of the petitioner.

Sl. No.	File No.	RRC No.	Amount
1	K2/Epta-75 & 84/88-89 dated 14.09.1998 of WFI Kottayam	B7 61136/88/K Dis. Dated 20.12.1988	Rs 24,000/- + 9% interest from 01.07 1988
2	K2/Epta-75 & 84/88-89 Dated 02-05- 1989 of WFI Kottayam	B7 30693/88/K Dis dated 13.06.1989	Rs 31,510/- + 9% interest from 01.12 1988
3	K2/Epta-84/88-89 Dated 09.10.1991 of WFI, Kottayam	B7 1446/92/K Dis dated 21.01.1992	Rs 11.287/-+ 9% interest from 16.02 1991
4	K2/Epta-75 & 84/88-89 Dated 09.10.1991 of WFI, Kottayam	B7 26793/92/K Dis dated 25.05.1992	Rs 22,716/- + 9% interest from 09.11.1990
5	KB/3224/89 Dated 29.11.1989 of AEC, Kottayam	B7 72399/88/K Dis dated 22.10.1990	Rs 14,172+13000 + 18% interest from 01.04.1989

An extent of property belonging to late Velayudhan and late Chinnamma Velayudhan was sold in auction. Since there were no bidders the property was treated as bought in land under the provisions of Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1968 Act'). The petitioner challenges the sale on two grounds. It is submitted that the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and concluded after late Chinnamma Velayudhan had expired and without proper notice to the legal heirs. It is further contended that the land could not have been purchased by the Government as certain portion of the arrears were due to the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Board and going by the decision of this court in Ayisha Teacher v. District Collector, Malappuram and another; 2009 (4) KHC 106, the land could not be treated as bought in land by the Government at least to the extent of dues payable to the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Board.

2. The learned Government Pleader submits with reference to the counter affidavit filed by 3rd respondent that the contention taken before this court that there was no proper notice to the legal heirs of late Chinnamma Velayudhan is absolutely incorrect. He submits that the properties were bought to sale after notice to the legal heirs of late Chinnamma Velayudhan as is evidenced from the documents produced as Exts.R3 (a) and R3 (b). It is submitted that since at least a part of the amount for which revenue recovery proceedings were initiated was amount due to the Government, the contention that the land could not be treated as bought in land is only to be rejected.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Toddy Workers'

Welfare Fund Board submits that the contention taken on behalf of the petitioner that there was no notice to the legal heirs of late Velayudhan and late Chinnamma Velayudhan cannot be accepted for one more reason. It is submitted that the petitioner was actively involved in the conduct of the business of his parents and it cannot be said that the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings initiated for recovery of amounts due from his parents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the total amount for which revenue recovery proceedings were held was Rs.82,185/- and the petitioner may be given one chance to pay off the amount due to the Government and to the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Board. It is also submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to pay off amounts in some reasonable installments. It is also asserted that the land in question is still in the possession of the petitioner and other legal heirs of late Velayudhan and late Chinnamma Velayudhan. The learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Board would submit that if this court were inclined to grant permission to the petitioner to pay off en

Click Here to Read the rest of this document