IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20582 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- E.M.VALIYATHAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.MAYYAN, VAVATTUPARA HOUSE, ADUVAD, POST:MAVOOR KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PROJECT DIRECTOR, POVERY ALLEVIATION UNIT, KOZHIKODE. 3. COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KUNNAMANGALAM. 5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KOZHIKODE. 6. MAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 20582 OF 2008 A ==================== Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he was Convenor of a work awarded by the District Rural Development Agency under the Million Well Scheme. On the allegation that he had received certain excess payments, recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by Ext.P2. It is stated that the petitioner represented the matter and accordingly verification was made and according to the petitioner this ultimately resulted in the conclusion that petitioner had not received any excess payment and that the recovery proceedings initiated against him are liable to be recalled. Ultimately, by Ext.P10, the Panchayat itself made a request to the 3rd respondent for withdrawing the revenue recovery action. Petitioner contends that while the matter is thus pending with the 3rd respondent, recovery proceedings initiated by Ext.P2 and resulted in Ext.P8 scheduling sale of his property on 11/7/08 is continued. It is in this situation, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Though initially, the allegation was that the petitioner had received excess payments, from Ext.P10 issued by the Panchayat, it would WPC 20582/08 :2 : appear that the Panchayat itself is of the view that there is no justification for such a conclusion and that the recovery proceedings are liable to be dropped. Now that such a recommendation from the Panchayat is pending consideration of the 3rd respondent, it is not proper for the respondents to continue the revenue recovery proceedings and sell the petitioner's property as is now scheduled by Ext.P8. 3. Having regard to the above circumstances, writ petition is disposed of directing that the 3rd respondent shall take up, consider and pass orders on Ext.P10, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that until a decision is taken on Ext.P10 and communicated to the petitioner, further proceedings pursuant to Exts. P2 and P8 shall be kept in abeyance. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd and 5th respondents for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp