IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 305 of 2007(J) ------------------------ OPMV.923/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAHADEVAN, SON OF MAYANDI, PULLACKAL HOUSE, MANJALLUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), ALATHUR. 4. V.V.RAMACHANDRAN, VALIYA VEEDU, ERIMAYUR, ALATHUR. BY G.P.SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 305 of 2007(J) ------------------------ PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1:- COPY OF DEMAND NOTICES DTD.16.9.06 ISSUED BY R3 UNDER S.7 OF R.R. ACT. EXT.P1(a):- COPY OF DEMAND NOTICES DTD.16.9.06 ISSUED BY R3 U/S.34 OF R.R. ACT. EXT.P2:- COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DTD.5.7.06 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MACT, PALAKKAD IN EP NO.4 OF 2006 IN OPMV NO.923 OF 1997. EXT.P3:- COPY OF STATEMENT DTD.5.7.06 FILED BY R4 BEFORE THE MACT, PALAKKAD IN EP NO.4 OF 2006 IN OPMV NO.923 OF 1997. RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.305 OF 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging revenue recovery notice for recovery of amounts awarded by the M.A.C.T., Palakkad in O.P.(M.V.)No.923/1997. The contention taken by the petitioner is that the matter was settled between the petitioner and the fourth respondent and the entire amount awarded by the M.A.C.T. was paid directly to the fourth respondent. Therefore the proceedings for recovery of the very same amount is unsustainable is his contention. Despite service of notice on the fourth respondent, who is the claimant in the O.P.(M.V.)No.923/1997, none appears. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the amounts have already been paid to the fourth respondent is accepted and the writ petition is disposed of quashing the revenue recovery proceedings. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd