The court upheld the validity of debt relief conditions, asserting that fulfillment of payment obligations allows for reconveyance of property despite prior auction.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a farmer by profession. He had availed an agricultural loan from the 4^th respondent bank. According to the petitioner, since he was entitled to debt relief, he approached Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) by filing application No.1901/18/TV, which was disposed of, after hearing the 4^th respondent bank [through Exhibit P1 order] finding the petitioner is eligible to debt relief to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only). It is seen from Exhibit P1 order that the total amount payable by the petitioner on the loan account ,as on the date of Exhibit P1 (17.02.2020), was Rs.5,97,668/- and the Commission fixed the appropriate level of debt at Rs.5,90,000/- under Section 5 (1)(b) of the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission Act , 2007 and after grating debt relief to the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner, directed that the said amount shall be paid by the Government to the 4^th respondent bank. It was further directed that the petitioner shall pay the balance amount of Rs.3,90,000/- within 12 months from 17.02.2020, failing which the petitioner will be liable to pay 10% interest per annum on the said amount of Rs.3,90,000/-

2. It appears that even prior to the date on which Exhibit P1 order was passed, the bank had brought the property of the petitioner, that was mortgaged, to sale and the sale was conducted on 12.06.2017. The bank itself purchased the property in auction and the sale was confirmed on 29.04.2020. A document conveying the property to the bank was also registered on 18.01.2022.

3. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)

No.13929 of 2023, where Exhibit P13 interim order was passed on 13.04.2023, staying the re-auction of the land by the bank on condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.4 lakhs within a period of two weeks from 13.04.2023. It is not disputed before me that, within the time specified in Exhibit P13 order, the petitioner had remitted the sum of Rs.4 lakhs. W.P.(C) No.13929 of 2023 was finally disposed of by Exhibit P12 judgment on

06.10.2023, in the following manner:-

‘’Bank initiated recovery steps for realisation of money due under a defaulted loan account. The property of the petitioner was sold in auction. The sale was confirmed on 29/04/2020. The Bank proposes to sell away the property. It is at that stage the petitioner has approached seeking re-

conveyance of the property.

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submits that the Bank is willing to re-convey the property of the petitioner provided the entire amounts, inclusive of interests and costs, and the expenses for re-conveyance is borne by the petitioner.

It is for the petitioner to approach the Bank seeking necessary action. Needless to say that the amounts deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the orders of this Court will also be taken note of by the Bank.’’

The petitioner is now before this Court being aggrieved by the fact that the bank is demanding amounts higher than the amounts payable by the petitioner in terms of Exhibit P1 for the purposes of reconveyance of the property. It is submitted that, the bank is now demanding a sum of Rs.4,63,000/- being the amount paid by the bank for the property, interest on the said amount of Rs.4,63,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,12,768/- [as costs/charges] for reconveyance of the property. It is submitted that, though the petitioner is bound to pay the reconveyance charges over and above the amounts specified in Exhibit P1, the petitioner is not bound to pay Rs.4,63,000/- along with interest, as demanded by the 4^th respondent bank.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent bank submits that since the petitioner did not pay the amou