AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shaji P.Chaly, J
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Exts.P4 and P5 demand notices issued under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for short, the 'Act, 1968') by which the petitioner is directed to remit an amount of Rs.89,00,268/-, failing which further coercive action is threatened under the said notices. The sum and substance of the issue is in relation to a property allotted to the petitioner in the KINFRA Park, Kannur, evident from Ext.P3 allotment letter dated 26.03.2001. Apparently, the owners of the land from whom the properties were acquired has approached the Land Acquisition Reference Court and the Reference Court has increased the land value by which the petitioner is liable to compensate KINFRA on account of the same. In fact, when the property was allotted, Ext.P1 lease deed was executed and in which a particular clause is included, thus making the petitioner/allottee liable to pay additional compensation, if under any circumstances, the compensation is enhanced by the Land Acquisition Reference Court.
Clause 3 of the said agreement is extracted hereunder:-
“The premium is paid based on the present day cost of acquisition of the land compromising KINFRA Small Industries Part, Thalassery, Kannur of which the leased premises is a part and if additional compensation becomes payable in respect of the land comprising KINFRA Small Industries Park, Thalassery, Kannur as a result of any orders of any Court in proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the premium payable will get enhanced proportionately to that extent and the Lessee shall be liable to pay the same as and when called upon to do so.”
It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the petitioner has executed the lease deed and the said clause is binding on the petitioner. But the contention put forth in this writ petition is that before initiating recovery action for recovering the amount allegedly due on the basis of the enhancement of the compensation by a Reference Court, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to contest the proceedings. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of Exts.P4 and P5, this writ petition is filed.
When the writ petition was admitted to the files of this Court on 15.07.2013, stay of proceedings pertaining to Exts.P4 and P5 was granted by this Court on condition that petitioner remits an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. Today when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said amount is not deposited. I am of the view that since the order was a conditional order, consequent to non-payment of the said amount, the order stood vacated.
Anyhow, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. In that view of the matter and since the matter was pending before this Court for the past nine years, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of with suitable directions.
Even though the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent–the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (KINFRA), submitted that three notices were given and petitioner has submitted a reply, he did not ask for an opportunity of hearing or participation, which persuaded the second respondent to seek recovery, as per the provisions of the Act, 1969.
Anyway, I am of the view that since the additional compensation is to be recovered from the petitioner necessarily, in the interest of justice and in order to maintain the principles of the natural justice, a full fledged opportunity ought to have been provided to the petitioner before coercive action is initiated against the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to file suitable objection to Exts.P4 and P5 notices before the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, Kannur - the first respondent, within three weeks from today. If any such objection is filed, it shall be finalised by the first respondent, after providing an opportunity of hearing and participation to the petitioner, within six weeks thereafter. The petitioner will be guided by the decision taken by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, as directed above.