IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 OP.No. 159 of 2002(R) --------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.M.ABDHULLA,ANJAMPARATHI, PALATHURUTHU KARA,CHENNAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,REVENUE RECOVERY, NORTH PARAVUR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,CHENAMANGALAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, NORTH PARAVUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1,2,3, THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.189/2002 IN O.P. NO.159/2002 DISMISSED: 12.8.2009 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.28.9.96 ISSUED BY R2. P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DT.14.3.95 ISSUED BY STANDARD AGENCY. P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF MAHAZAR DT.15.12.2001 PREPARED BY R3. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.159 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,47,076/-. The petitioner was the Convenor of the beneficiary committee which was assigned work for construction of a water tank for agricultural purpose. Government Pleader submitted that petitioner has paid 25% of the demand in terms of the interim order. Even though counter affidavit is filed, there is no mention about evaluation of work by the Engineer-in-charge. However, Government Pleader submitted that the Engineer has evaluated the work done at Rs.44,884/-. Certainly the excess withdrawn over the value for which work is executed is recoverable from the beneficiary committee of which petitioner was the Convenor. The petitioner's case is that respondents have not stated that full amount was released to him. However, petitioner also has not stated the periodical withdrawal of the amount and the work executed by him. In any case this is not a matter to be settled by this court. In similar cases this court held that beneficiary committee which has not spent the amount withdrawn from Government is bound to repay the amount with interest to the Government, 2 failing which recovery can be initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act. The O.P. is, therefore, disposed of directing the 4th respondent to hand over the evaluation report to the petitioner on production of copy of this judgment. If work done is not evaluated by the Engineer concerned, then fresh evaluation will be done after notice to the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of production of copy of this judgment. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to withhold recovery proceedings for a period of three months from now, within which time the petitioner will produce the evaluation report issued by the 4th respondent. If the excess withdrawn over the value of work done by the petitioner is not remitted by the petitioner, the same can be recovered from him and other members of the beneficiary committee. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms