IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 7259 of 2009(B) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SHERLY (CICILY)AGED 46 YRS, W/O.K.J.FRANCIS,KULIYATTIL HOUSE,NADAMA VILLAGE, TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADVS. SRI.V.L.SHENOY SRI.L.JAYAWANTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,VAIKOM. * ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED 3. ASOK FRANCIS, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. FRANCIS, KUNDATHIL KARIYIL HOUSE, THANNERMUKKOM, CHERTHALAI - 583 003. * ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02/08/2011 IN I.A. NO.11291/2011. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 7259/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20/08/2008 MADE BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10/11/2004 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VECHOOR. P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C.6.8266/2004 DATED 14/01/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16/02/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C.6.8266/2004 DATED 25/02/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7259 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of August , 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is a communication issued by the Tahsildar demanding an amount of Rs.9,750/- towards the damages caused in the property which was given to the petitioner on Kuthakappattom lease. This document also indicates that an amount of Rs.10,810/- towards the arrears of Kuthakappattom lease is also due. 2. The main ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that long prior to the period towards which the amount is demanded, he had alienated the property and therefore the demand in question is unsustainable. However, Ext.P3, a previous communication issued by the Tahsildar, shows that as claimed by the petitioner, he made a joint application along with the transferee for W.P.(C) No. 7259 OF 2009 :2 : getting the lease transferred in favour of the transferee. That application was made on 19.6.2008. If that be so, the demand made by Ext.P5 pertains to a period prior to the date of application, for which period the petitioner alone has the liability. In view of this factual position, petitioner cannot avoid the demand made as per Ext.P5. 3. At this stage counsel for the petitioner seeks an installment facility for payment of the amount demanded. Heard the learned Government Pleader also on this issue. Taking note of the said request made by the petitioner, I direct that the petitioner will be permitted to pay the dues as per Ext.P5, in five equal monthly installments, first of which will be paid on or before 25.8.2011 and the subsequent installments shall be paid on or before 25th of the succeeding months. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge