IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 38347 of 2010(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SAPHIA NAZARUDDIN, W/O.NAZARUDEEN, THENAMACKAL, CHUNDASERRIYIL, FIRST MILE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.AFSAL KHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY SECRETARY (R.R.), KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, SANTHI NAGAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-685 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BRANCH OFFICE, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-685 002. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-685 001. R1, R3 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.MATHEW GOERGE VADEKKEL R2 & R4 BY ADV. MR.A. JAYASANKAR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.38347 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against coercive steps of recovery initiated under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, for realising amounts due from the petitioner to respondents 2 and 4, under a housing loan account which was availed by her for constructing a residential house. As evident from Ext.P1, an amount of Rs.10,34,559/- as on 1.2.2008 along with future interest was sought to be recovered. It is evident that the petitioner had approached various authorities with different representations as per Ext.P2 and P4, seeking permission for payment of the amounts in a phased manner and also seeking waiver of interest and other charges to the possible extent. But, according to the petitioner, none of such representations were considered and at the same time the respondents are proceeding with further steps for attachment and sale of immovable property by issuing Ext.P5 notice. Under such circumstances the petitioner seeks interference of this court. 2. On a perusal of the contentions raised, I am not at all W.P.(C).38347/10 -2- impressed that there exists any legally tenable ground to interfere with the recovery steps now initiated or to hold that the petitioner is not liable for payment of the amount demanded. However, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 4 had pointed out that if the petitioner approaches the respondents, settlement of the account can be considered under the 'One Time Settlement scheme', which is prevailing on the basis of the orders of the State Government. On the basis of such submission this court had directed the petitioner to approach the authority, through an interim order issued dt.1.2.2011. Meanwhile, the petitioner was directed to make payment of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- ,which is stated to have been paid. 3. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 4, on the basis of instructions received submitted that, even though the total amount outstanding is more than Rs.12 lakhs, the petitioner will be exonerated if he makes payment of a sum of Rs.6,66,574/- as on date, under the 'OTS scheme'. Learned counsel for the petitioner expressed willingness to avail the benefit and to settle payment of the amount within a reasonable time. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 and 4 to consider the request submitted by the petitioner for permitting W.P.(C).38347/10 -3- 'One Time Settlement' and to inform the decision thereof to the petitioner at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- paid pursuant to the interim order issued by this court shall be credited against the amount payable under the OTS settlement. Further it is observed that the petitioner shall be afforded with opportunity to make payment of the amount of settlement within a reasonable period, at any rate before the expiry of the validity of the scheme which is now in force. 5. In order to facilitate the petitioner to clear payment of the liability, further coercive steps of recovery shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three months. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb