IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 2850 of 2009 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17951/2007 DATED 11.8.2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- M.SIVADASAN, S/O.BALAN, SRREVALSAM, PEEDIYETHU KUNNU, KADALUNDI P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY KOZHIKODE DIVISION, KOZHIKODE-6. 2. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.A.JAYASANKAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.2850 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17951 of 2007 challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the first respondent Kerala State Housing Board, Kozhikode Division. 2. The writ petitioner, a defaulter, was offered One Time Settlement Scheme and inspite of such offer for three times was not availed by him, once again approached this Court with a challenge as to the new scheme under which he has to pay a balance amount of Rs.55,000/- as against the sum of Rs.1,84,000/- payable during the normal course. 3. Noting the conduct of the petitioner/appellant that inspite of giving him sufficient opportunities, he has not availed the Scheme and paid the balance amount, the learned Single Judge, in our view, was justified in declining to grant relief to the W.A.No.2850 of 2009 - 2 - petitioner/appellant. We do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge or in the action taken by the first respondent. Hence, we find no merit in the writ appeal and the same is rejected. 4. However, at this stage, on the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to extend the time for payment of the balance amount due under the One Time Settlement Scheme by one month from today. Since it is the Government which is required to reimburse the amount to the Housing Board, we direct the Government to extend the time for payment of the balance amount due under the One Time Settlement Scheme in this case of the appellant alone without treating it as a precedent. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns/vgs