IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 31871 of 2005(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.P.KARUPPAN, S/O.PALANI, PATTALAMMAN HOUSE, KALLARKUTTY KARA, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN SMT.BINITHA JAMES RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. VELLATHOOVAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VELLATHOOVAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VELLATHOOVAL.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB FOR R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.31871/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE DETAILED ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF ANGANWADI BUILDING.. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE DETAILED ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY HALL. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE CONTRACT DT. 24.2.99. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT DT. 25.3.99. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE MEASUREMENT BOOK. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PALLIVASAL. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 20.6.02. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 31871 of 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated: MAY 27, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P9 to P11 proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. 2. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner was the convener of two projects executed under the Peoples Planning Programme for the construction of an Anganwady and a Community Hall. According to the petitioner, for commencing the work in relation to the aforesaid projects, advances were given to the petitioner. In respect of the Anganwady, an advance of Rs.8000/- was made on 25.3.1999 and in respect of the Community Hall, an advance of Rs.9000/- was made on 24.2.1999. 3. It is stated that in pursuance thereof, agreements were executed between the parties and Ext.P4 is the agreement executed in connection with the work concerning the Anganwady. Ext.P4 provides for recovery of the advance paid in instalments from the WP(C) 31871 of 2005 2 payments that are made to the convener and it also provides for the liability of the convener to repay the amount in case of default. According to the petitioner, he commenced the work and the Executive Engineer had even measured the quantity of the work that was executed in respect of the work concerning the Anganwady. Petitioner swears that Ext.P5 is the measurement where an amount of Rs.23,093/- was recommended for payment. He would also submit that in relation to the Community Hall, by Ext.P6 measurement by the Executive Engineer, an amount of Rs.19,827/- was recommended. 4. Petitioner submits that the respondent Panchayat did not make payment as a result of which, on account of constraints of resources, he had to abandon the work of the projects. It is stated that thereafter on 20.6.2002, Exts.P7 and P8 notices were issued by the Panchayat claiming refund of the payments made to the petitioner in 1999. It is stated that though the petitioner disputed his liability for refunding the amount as demanded in the notices, without any further notice, the Panchayat initiated revenue recovery proceedings by Exts.P9 to P11 and it is in this background, the writ WP(C) 31871 of 2005 3 petition is filed seeking to quash the recovery proceedings against the petitioner. 5. The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that though the petitioner, as convener, had undertaken the works as above, he had committed default rendering himself liable for refunding the amount in terms of the agreements that were executed between the parties. The Panchayat would also assert for the position that they are entitled to unilaterally quantify the loss suffered by them and recover the same by taking recourse to the provisions contained in the Revenue Recovery Act. 6. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied on sec.243 of the Panchayat Raj Act and argued for the position that the recovery effected is clearly time barred, I am not going into that aspect of the matter, for, I feel that the matter needs to be reconsidered at the hands of the Panchayat itself for other reasons. This is for the reason that the Panchayat has not quantified the liability of the petitioner, at any rate, with notice to the petitioner. Since the Panchayat is seeking to recover the loss alleged to have been suffered by it, the Panchayat is not entitled to WP(C) 31871 of 2005 4 unilaterally quantify its dues and force recovery against the petitioner, taking recourse to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. It has to give notice to the petitioner, consider his objections and give him an opportunity of hearing as well. It is only thereafter can the Panchayat recover the amount, even if any amount is found to be due from the petitioner. This having not been done in this case, Ext.P9 cannot be enforced against the petitioner atleast at this stage. 7. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the Panchayat shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioner inviting his objections, consider his objections, hear him and thereafter pass fresh orders in the matter. Depending on the outcome of the decision, the Panchayat can enforce Exts.P9 to P11 against the petitioner and, if needed, by making suitable modification to such proceedings. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE WP(C) 31871 of 2005 5 mt/-