IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32163 of 2011(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KUNCHERIA ALEXANDER, S/O.ALEXANDER, AGED 61 YEARS, CHERUKODE, CHENNAKARI, KUTTANADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES SRI.K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN (ELOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FOREST AND WILD LIFE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, HIGH RANGE CIRCLE, ARANYA BHAVAN FOREST COMPLEX, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 006. 3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI-685 612. 4. FOREST RANGER, RANGE OFFICE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 612. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, ANAVIRATTI, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 561. 6. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KAINAKARI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 501. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JAMES KURIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.32163/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.16.1.1990. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 4.2.1991. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD.3.5.1991. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.06.08.2003. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.M1-1086/91 DTD.19.2.2007. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.M1-1086/91 DTD.30.3.2010. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.03.05.2010. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.D7-55/10 DTD.20.9.2010. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.36 DTD.30.11.2010. EXT.P9(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.2700271 DTD.20.10.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32163 of 2011 U ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner is the owner of 22.4 acres of land comprised in survey No.220/2 and 200/3 of Anaviratty village of Devikulam Taluk. He made Ext.P2 application for removal of certain wind fallen trees from his estate. When that was not granted, he approached this Court by filing O.P.No.1684/1991. In that Original Petition, this Court passed an order, enabling the petitioner to move the timber on furnishing a Bank Guarantee of `2,50,000/-. 2. Subsequently, the order was modified by Ext.P3, directing to re-quantify the seniorage value of the timber, which was thus re-quantified at `4,05,709/-. Accordingly, petitioner furnished a Bank guarantee and on that basis, the timber was also removed. 3. The Original Petition itself was later disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing that seniorage will be realized W.P.(C) No.32163/2011 : 2 : in the manner as indicated therein. However, the validity of the Bank Guarantee had expired in the meanwhile and the same was not renewed by the petitioner. 4. While the controversy was thus pending, Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. At that stage, petitioner approached the Government and obtained an instalment facility. However, the instalments were not fully paid. On the other hand, he only paid the amount which is the admitted liability. As a result, the Revenue Recovery is being continued and it is at that stage, the writ petition is filed, challenging the recovery proceedings. 5. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that, since the liability is a disputed one, unless the dispute is settled, revenue recovery proceedings cannot be continued. 6. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not see any substance in the plea. As already seen, respondents have already quantified the liability of the petitioner at `4,05,709/-. When W.P.(C) No.32163/2011 : 3 : recovery proceedings were initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, instead of disputing the liability and taking recourse to the remedies that are available, petitioner approached the Government and obtained instalment facility. This necessarily means that the petitioner had accepted the liability in its entirety. If that be so, it is not open to the petitioner at this distance of time to contend that the liability was under dispute. Consequently, continuance of the Revenue Recovery proceedings for realization of the dues cannot be said to be illegal for any reason. Writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/02/12 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge