IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2565 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.A.ASHRAF, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, PULICKAKUDY HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.NAVAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGOLA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 2565 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 27th January , 2010 J U D G M E N T The crux of the dispute involved in the Writ Petition is as to who is the proper party to satisfy the compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T.,Thodupuzha in O.P.(MV)17/04, based on the observations in paragraph 2 of Ext.P10 judgment passed by this Court in the appeal arose therefrom. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved of the revenue recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of the insurer, who was directed to satisfy the claim, with liberty to proceed against the above respondents as ordered by the Tribunal. It is further stated that this Court had occasion to consider as to the rival claims in M.A.C.A. 2254 of 2009, leading to Ext.P10 judgment, whereby the impugned award was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the limited question as W.P.(C) No. 2565 OF 2010 2 to the actual liability between the Insurance Company on one side and respondents 2 and 4 before the Tribunal on the other side, with liberty to the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their contentions; simultaneously making it clear that no coercive proceedings shall be pursued in the meanwhile to realize the amount from the 2nd and 4th respondents till final decision was taken. The grievance projected by the petitioner is that, it is without any regard to the mandate given by Ext. P10 judgment, that Exts. P7 to P9 notices have been issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, whereby the petitioner has been driven to this Court seeking for immediate interference. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents fairly concedes that the contention of the petitioner with specific reference to Ext.P10 is correct. However, it is also pointed out that the revenue recovery proceedings as borne by Exts. P7 to P9 are dated 17.08.2009, much prior to the date of passing of Ext.P10 verdict and that there is absolutely no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in giving W.P.(C) No. 2565 OF 2010 3 effect to Ext. P10. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, the steps taken by the respondents vide Ext. P7 and P9 are ordered to be kept in abeyance, which could be revived and pursued subject to further orders to be passed by the M.A..C.T., Thodupuzha in the concerned case, in furtherance to Ext. P10 judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk