IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 471 of 2010(H) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- PAMILA LUIZ, W/O.RAYMOND LUIZ, CHERUPUNATHIL HOUSE, KUTTIKATTUKARA, KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE, PARUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE SRI.M.JOSE ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICER, NORTH PARUR. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KADUNGALLUR, MUPPATHADAM.P.O. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 471 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated, this the 1st day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers. i) Call for the records leading to exhibits P2, P2(a), P3 and P3(a) demand notices and declare that the respondents are not entitled to proceed against the land and the movable properties of the petitioner as evidenced by exhibits P1 and P6 series by attaching and removing them from the house of the petitioner. ii) Call for the records leading to exhibits P2, P2 (a), P3 and P3(a) demand notices and quash the same, as the action pursuant to it is after a long period of more than 10 years, by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction. iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents 2 and 3 not to initiate any recovery proceedings against the petitioner until an order is passed on Exhibit P5 representation filed as per the direction in Exhibit P4 judgment. The case put forth by the petitioner is that despite the clear direction given by this Court vide Ext.P4 judgment passed more than a decade back and in spite of filing Ext.P5 representation in tune with the observations in the said judgment, the same is still to be considered or finalized; before which coercive steps by way of Revenue Recovery proceedings are being pursued against the petitioner. 2. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement before this Court WP(C) No.471/2010 2 as to the sequence of events; however conceding in paragraph 4 that, even though the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation on 17.09.1999 and the hearing was conducted on 25.10.1999, no formal orders could be passed and communicated to the petitioner, due to an inadvertent omission, and is sought to be condoned. It is also added that no action has been taken from the part of the 2nd respondent against the properties of the petitioner so far. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P2 Revenue Recovery proceedings are obviously dated 11.08.1997 and that the same will not be given effect to, also for the obvious reason that the said proceedings are in the name of husband of the petitioner and not against the petitioner; simultaneously adding the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is quite out of place. In view of the undertaking given before this Court that the petitioner’s properties will not be proceeded against, no further orders are necessary and the Writ Petition is disposed of recording the position as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc