IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8668 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VIJAYAMMA, W/O.BRAHMANANDAN, THOTTUMUKKATHU, MUNDACKAL. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, MUNDACKAL VILLAGE OFFICE, KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC. R2 AND R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 8668 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 6th April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the steps taken under the Revenue Recovery Act, seeking to realise the amount stated as due from the petitioner under a housing loan extended by the first respondent herein. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier seeking for the benefit of 'OTS' and such other benefits and the matter was considered and disposed of, as per Ext. P1 judgment whereby the 4th respondent therein (now taken over by the first respondent Corporation in this Writ Petition) was directed to consider the matter and to give benefits to the permissible extent, making it clear that if the same was not satisfied by the petitioner effecting payments as specified therein, the respondents would be free to proceed with further steps. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent W.P.(C) No. 8668 OF 2010 2 Corporation submits that the petitioner has not approached the concerned respondent for availing the benefit granted vide Ext. P1 as specifically stated in paragraph '8' of the statement filed in this regard. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the office of the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.38737 of 2002, was not functioning and the petitioner was virtually prevented from pursuing the benefits obtained vide Ext. P1 . It is also brought to the notice of this Court that it was much later that the office of the said respondent was taken over by the first respondent Corporation herein and as such, the case of the petitioner requires to be considered by the first respondent, in the manner as directed by this Court vide Ext. P1 . 4. After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that the petitioner can be given one more opportunity to pursue his grievances before the first respondent . Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to consider Exts. P3 and P4, in accordance with law and also with reference to the specific observation made by this Court in Ext. P1 judgment and the W.P.(C) No. 8668 OF 2010 3 outcome shall be let known to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Subject to the above, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall satisfy the entire liability subject to the decision to be communicated to the petitioner as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk