IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 2920 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- RAJAMMA, W/O.RAGHAVAN, VILAYIL VEEDU, THEKKECHERRY, THRIKKARUVA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, DISTRICT OFFICER, OPPOSITE OF S.N.WOMEN COLLEGE, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT MANAGER. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR(RR), KOLLAM. 3. RAJ KUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PUTHENPURAYILKADA, KANDARAMKANI WARD, MANTHROTHURUTH PO, KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN,SC,K.S.B.C.DEVP.CO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C ) No. 2920 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 24th May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is an 'octogenarian ' having crossed the age of '80' years, is made to come before this Court, in view of the coercive steps being pursued by the respondents invoking the remedy under the Revenue Recovery Act, for realisation of the amount stated as due from the third respondent, who is none other than the son of the petitioner, who had availed some loan on the basis of the security interest created over the property in question, over which, the petitioner is also having 'life interest'. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the course and proceedings conducted by the respondents are not correct or sustainable . Despite the willingness offered from the part of the third respondent to clear the outstanding liability, provided some breathing time is given, the same has not been W.P.(C ) No. 2920 OF 2010 2 considered or appreciated by the respondents. As a natural consequence, the property over which life interest has been created in favour of the petitioner is being proceeded against and because of the steps taken in this regard, the movable as well as immovable properties are about to be taken possession of immediately, which will drive the petitioner to the streets and hence is under challenge. 3. The learned Counsel for the first respondent submits with reference to the contents of the statement filed , that many an opportunity has been given to the third respondent/borrower to satisfy the due amount, but he did never choose to honour his words by his deeds and in the circumstances, there was no other alternative for the first respondent to proceed with further steps for realisation of the due amount. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner, who is the mother of the third respondent and the person having 'life interest' over the property in question herself had turned up before the first respondent and executed Annexure-I , which sustains the action pursued by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the property. W.P.(C ) No. 2920 OF 2010 3 It is also stated by the learned Counsel that though there was a Scheme for 'OTS', which was available till 31.03.2010, neither the petitioner nor the son/third respondent sought to avail the benefit thereunder. 4. However, considering particular facts and circumstances, including the fact that the Writ Petition was filed before this Court as early as 28.01.2010 and that the petitioner is an aged lady of 84 years, (who has been made to put her thumb impression on Anenxure-I, sustain the course now being pursued by the respondents), this Court finds it fit, just and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the liability in a phased manner. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to cause the liability to be cleared by way of '10' equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be cleared on or before 30.06.2010, to be followed by similar installments, to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months . Subject to this, the recovery steps stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in effecting the installments as W.P.(C ) No. 2920 OF 2010 4 above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk