IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 17684 of 2008(E) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- NIZARUDEEN, AGED 42, S/O.ASSANARU PILLA, ATTINPURAM, PANAVOOR, NADUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, VENJARAMOODU BRANCH,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), REGL.OFFICE, K.S.F.E.LTD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. HUSSAIN, PALAVILA VEEDU, POOVAKKAD, PANAYAM P.O, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC FOR R1 ADV. SRI. M.L. SAJEEVAN, SC FOR KSFE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 17684 OF 2008 E ==================== Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition what is sought for by the petitioner is to quash Ext.P1. There is a further prayer to direct the respondents to furnish the petitioner correct statement of accounts of the chitties subscribed by him and also to give him sufficient time of not less than 6 months to remit the actual amounts due. 2. In so far as the challenge against Ext.P1 is concerned, it is a notice of sale of immovable properties issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. According to the standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the recovery proceedings were necessitated as the petitioner had committed default in the chitties subscribed by him. It is also stated that presently more than Rs. 5,60,000/- is due. Though the quantum of the amount due to the respondent is what the learned counsel for the petitioner disputes, still, fact remains that money is due from the petitioner. If that be so, Ext.P1 as such cannot be faulted. In the absence if any material to doubt the correctness of the quantification of his liability, I cannot accept the dispute raised against the amount as quantified. WPC 17684/08 :2 : 3. Another request made by the petitioner is for the issue of a statement of account. In so far as this prayer is concerned, what is noticed is that the petitioner has not placed on record anything to indicate that such a request has been made to the respondents. In the absence a request in this behalf, this court will not be justified in coming to the rescue of the petitioner. One attempt seems to be only to avoid payment of the amount due. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner can be given the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme provided he makes a suitable request and complies with the conditions thereof. This opportunity may be availed of by the petitioner and with that liberty, I close this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp