IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26986 of 2010(W) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ R. SELVAN DHANISHA BHAVAN, AITHY, PARANDODE PO, ARYANADU, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD (KSHB), HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHINGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001,REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, BRANCH OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.A. JAYASANKAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 26986 of 2010-W ---------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T 1. Revenue recovery steps initiated against the petitioner for realisation of the amount under the housing loan availed from the first respondent Board, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner availed housing loan to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- during the year 1990, on agreeing to repay the same within a period of 15 years in monthly instalments. Consequent to default committed, the respondents initiated steps for recovery by recourse to procedure under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Exts.P1 and P2 are the notice issued in this regard threatening sale of immovable property. According to the petitioner, the amount demanded under revenue recovery proceedings is not the correct arrears due and payments already made has not been given proper credit. The provisions in the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, enables the petitioner to raise dispute if any regarding correctness of the amount, by approaching the authorities under that statute. Being a question of disputed facts, this Court under Article 226 cannot W.P(C) No. 26986 of 2010-W 2 adjudicate any such dispute. There is no other serious illegality or infirmity pointed out with respect to the proceedings impugned. Hence I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition on its merits. 3. However, Sri.A.B.Mohanakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal that he may be permitted to avail benefits provided under a Scheme formulated by the State Government for 'one time settlement' of the housing loans availed from the first respondent Board. 4. Sri.A.Jayasankar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Board fairly conceded that the Scheme formulated by the State Government is in operation till 30.9.2010. It was submitted that if the petitioner approaches the second respondent, his eligibility under the Scheme will be considered and a decision thereof will be taken. 5. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner is directed to approach the second respondent within a period of one week from today, seeking to consider 'one time settlement' of the loan account. On the event, the respondents will consider the case in terms of the Scheme formulated by the Government in this behalf, and shall inform the petitioner about the amount to be paid under W.P(C) No. 26986 of 2010-W 3 settlement. 6. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be given a reasonable time for payment of the amount within the period stipulated under the Scheme. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of such amount, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps of recovery. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab