IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 28337 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.ROHITHASWAN, SHIHA NIVAS, VILAYOOR P.O., VIA PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SMT.UMA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PATTAMBI. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), OTTAPPALAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILAYUR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 28337/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). No. 19151/2003 OF THIS COURT. P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). No. 15197/2004 OF THIS COURT. P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.30.7.2006 OF R3. P4. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.30.7.2007 OF R3. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.23.8.2005 TO THE RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENT(S)'EXHIBITS R2A. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.3.11.2006 OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT. “B. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.24.4.2007 OF -D0- sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.28337 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from Government service as Block Development Officer in 1999. DCRG due to him was not released till 2003. The petitioner filed W.P.(C). No. 19151/2003 for disbursing the DCRG. That writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to release the DCRG due to him after deducting the liability of Rs.3,031/-. But later on, while disbursing the DCRG, an amount of Rs.21,175/- was also withheld from the DCRG and the balance alone was paid. The petitioner filed W.P.(C). No. 15197/2004 challenging the same. That writ petition was allowed, by Ext.P2 judgment, directing the respondents to disburse the withheld amount of Rs.21,175/-. The same had been disbursed to the petitioner. Now revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for recovery of that amount. Such proceedings are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. I have heard both sides. 3. After hearing, I am of opinion that after having suffered two judgments of this Court in the above said writ petitions against the recovery, the respondents cannot again seek to initiate revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the said amount. Fixation of 2 liability and recovery thereof from DCRG are only because the same is permitted by the Kerala Service Rules. The proceedings initiated under the KSR have been set aside by this Court. That being so, if at all any liability is due from the petitioner, that has to be quantified by an independent authority before initiating proceedings for recovery of the same. Such an independent assessment of the liability has not been made by the respondents. Further, it is settled law that for revenue recovery proceedings also, law of limitation is applicable. The amounts are said to be due for the period when he was in service. He retired from service in 1999. Therefore, on any count, the said amount cannot be recovered from the petitioner at this point of time. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge