IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7139 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- ELSAMMA PAUL, AGED 47 W/O.T.C.PAUL, THURUTHEL,KIZHAKKE KAIPPALLIYIL HOUSE ,KADAKKANADU P.O.,KOLENCHERRY (VIA) ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH KUMAR SRI.E.M.MURUGAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY) KUNNATHUNADU TALUK ERNAKULAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER MAZHUVANNUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 4. UNION BANK OF INDIA KADAYIRUPPU BRANCH, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER KADAYIRUPPU. 5. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL BRANCH, KOLENCHERRY, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER WP(C).No. 7139 of 2008 :: 2 :: 6. THE FEDERAL BANK, KOLENCHERRY BRANCH KOLENCHERRY. 7. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. R5 BY ADV.SRI.SATHISH NAINAN - STANDING COUNSEL R1 TO R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C)No.7139 of 2008 Y ------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Apparently, the petitioner's husband availed agricultural loans from three different banks. It seems that the amounts due in favour of the Union Bank of India has been discharged, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. But, amounts are still due to the State Bank of Travancore and the Federal Bank. The petitioner has a contention that some of the loans have become time barred. Therefore, the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act are not strictly justified, it is contended. 2. A contention that recovery is barred by limitation might be justified, in appropriate circumstances. In the first instance, it has to be considered by the competent authority. In my view, Ext.P5 may be considered by the District Collector and the sale of the property scheduled in Ext.P6 be kept in abeyance, pending such consideration. W.P.(C).NO.7139/08 :: 2 :: 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent as also the learned Government Pleader. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 7th respondent to take a decision on Ext.P5, after hearing the petitioner and the representatives of respondents 4, 5 and 6, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The sale of the property pursuant to Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance till the District Collector takes a decision, in the manner aforementioned. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge