IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37476 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.U.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, MEETHALAVALAPPIL, EDAKKAD AMSAM DESAM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI. K.SHAJ, SRI.SAJJU.S. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670 001. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KANNUR- PIN - 670 001. 3. MANALERI BALAN, S/O.RAMAN, MANALERI HOUSE, MUZHAPILANGAD, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001. 4. MANAGER, CANARA BANK, CALTEX, KANNUR, PIN - 670 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN R4 BY ADV. SRI. PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN, SC, CANARA BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.37476 of 2010-H ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The allegation in the writ petition is that the 1st respondent has not disposed of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 53 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, inspite of the specific direction issued by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment. 2. Learned Government Pleader had produced a copy of the proceedings issued by the District Collector rejecting the application submitted under Section 53, after conducting a personal hearing of all the parties concerned, including the petitioner. The proceedings in question was issued by the 1st respondent as per reference No.G98941/2005 dated 20.11.2009. It is further stated that the petitioner had submitted a compliant before the Government on 6.2.2010 alleging that the District Collector is not disposing the matter in compliance with Ext.P3 judgment and the Government, after getting instructions W.P(C) No.37476 of 2010-H 2 from the District Collector, had informed the petitioner that the 1st respondent had already issued proceedings as stated above. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Bank submits that the petitioner is aware about the proceedings and that he had participated in the hearing conducted before the 1st respondent. 3. Specific case of the petitioner is that, he was not served with a copy of the proceedings issued by the District Collector. It is left open to the petitioner to approach the District Collector to get a copy of the proceedings as stated above and it will be further left open to the petitioner to seek appropriate statutory remedy against such proceedings, if he is aggrieved. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate statutory steps against the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent, if he is aggrieved. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab