IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26405 of 2010(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KUNHIKANNAN. C., AGED 52 YEARS S/O.CHOYI, CHILLIKKAL HOUSE, VAYAMBU, BELUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA, SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL DEPTUY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), HOSDURG, P.O.KANHANGAD, PIN-671 315. 2. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, KANHANGAD BRANCH, P.O. KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BYITS MANAGER, PIN-671 315. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. MR.P.V. SURENDRANATH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26405 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Revenue recovery steps initiated for realising arrears in a Bank loan account availed by the petitioner from the 2nd respondent Bank, is under challenge. It is contended that the loan account in question is liable to be considered for settlement under the Agricultural Debt Relief package declared by the State Government as well as by the Reserve Bank of India. Since the revenue recovery steps were initiated without considering request made by the petitioner in this regard, the petitioner is assailing the proceedings. 2. Apart from a vague statement that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit under the Agricultural Debt Relief scheme, nothing is produced to substantiate such a claim. He is also not specific as to under which scheme he is entitled for such relief. Further, it is noticed that the petitioner could not establish any legal infirmity or impropriety against the proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 3. However, it is noticed that at the time when the writ W.P.(C).26405/10-A -2- petition came up for admission, this court directed to keep further proceedings in abeyance subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner had already complied with the condition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court in permitting the petitioner to pay off the balance amount within a reasonable time in instalments. The Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Bank, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the balance outstanding is Rs.1,86,607/- as on 1.2.2010, along with future interest. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time, eventhough interference on merits is not warranted. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, provided the petitioner makes payment of the entire balance along with future interest and other charges in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.10.2010 and on or before the 15th day of succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in W.P.(C).26405/10-A -3- payment of any one of the instalments the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps of recovery. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb