IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 744 of 2011(P) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- SURESH BABU ,AGED 42, S/O.SUGATHAN, THUNDUVILLA VEEDU,NEDUMANGADU, PO VETTOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, VARKALA - 695 141. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VETTOOR VILLAGE - 695 148. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.744 of 2011-P ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Alleging failure to execute a work undertaken by the petitioner, recovery steps were initiated for realising the amounts already paid through part bills. Contention of the petitioner is that he was only the convenor of a beneficiary committee and he had rescinded from the contract, since the department had failed to supply pipes required for completion of the work. 2. The recovery steps were challenged by the petitioner before this Court on an earlier occasion, through W.P(C) No.31475 of 2006. In Ext.P10 judgment, this Court observed that the dispute comes within the realm of contract and the appropriate remedy is to file Civil Suit. Accordingly, the petitioner was relegated to seek remedy under common law with respect to the dispute regarding liability. However, the petitioner raised a further contention that, pursuant to recovery steps initiated all his W.P(C) No.744/2011-P 2 immovable properties were attached, whereas the demand is only with respect to a sum of Rs.1,83,377/-. The petitioner expressed willingness to provide sufficient security for the amount under demand, by offering one item of immovable property. On that basis claim of the petitioner was for lifting of the attachment with respect to all other items of properties. This Court in Ext.P10 judgment observed that, if the petitioner makes any appropriate representation in this regard before the District Collector, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders shall be issued thereon. According to the petitioner, in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P10, he had submitted a representation before the 3rd respondent, District Collector. The 3rd respondent had disposed of the same through Ext.P12 order, wherein the request was declined observing that there is no evidence produced to prove that the upset price of the property offered by the petitioner as security, comprised in Survey No.413 of Vettoor Village having an extent of 36.60 Ares, is W.P(C) No.744/2011-P 3 either equivalent or above the amount in default. On the basis of the observations the 3rd respondent made it clear that the revenue recovery authorities are free to proceed against various items of properties belonging to the petitioner. 3. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P12 order in this writ petition. Contention of the petitioner is that the property which is offered as security will fetch a market price around Rs.20 lakhs, whereas the amount demanded under the recovery proceedings is below Rs.2 lakhs only. It is highly unreasonable on the part of the 3rd respondent to reject the request observing that the petitioner has failed in producing valuation of the property, is the contention. It is pointed out by the petitioner that, being the superior authority in the Revenue Department of the State Government, the 3rd respondent could have easily obtained a valuation certificate of the property from the Tahasildar concerned. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the opinion that the 3rd respondent had failed W.P(C) No.744/2011-P 4 in dealing with the matter in its real perspective. It is totally unjustifiable on the part of the revenue recovery authorities to have effected attachment on all the immovable properties of the petitioner, which will fetch a market price many fold higher than the amount in default. The authorities in such case should act with reasonableness and need to proceed only against any one items of properties at the first instance, which such authority may think reasonably sufficient to realise the amount in default. However, considering the impugned decision of the 3rd respondent, I find merit in the contentions of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent would have very well obtained a valuation certificate from the Tahsildar concerned. It is evident that the 3rd respondent had failed to take note of the fact that the amount in default is a sum of Rs.1,83,377/- only, whereas the extent of the property offered as security is 36.60 Ares. It is evident that the petitioner is seriously contesting the liability and he is pursuing the matter before the Civil Court. Of course, if the petitioner is not obtaining W.P(C) No.744/2011-P 5 any valid interim order restraining the recovery, it is left open for the authorities to proceed with further steps against the property of the petitioner. But for effecting such recovery continued attachment of all the items of the immovable properties belonging to the petitioner is not at all warranted, provided the petitioner furnishes security of unencumberenced property having valuation reasonably more than the amount in default. 5. Considered the matter on the above mentioned perspective, I am of the opinion that the matter requires fresh decision at the hands of the 3rd respondent, District Collector. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P4. The 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and to take a fresh decision on the basis of the request of the petitioner, in view of the direction contained in Ext.P10 judgment, affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, bearing in mind the observations contained as above. An order in this regard shall be issued as early as possible, at any rate W.P(C) No.744/2011-P 6 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of judgment. 6. It is made clear that, till a decision is taken by the 3rd respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts through sale of any item of the immovable property shall be kept in abeyance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab