IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22415 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PHILIP MATHEW, KOYIPPURATHU HOUSE MURICKANADU KARA, MUTHOLY PO., PALA BY ADV. SRI.P.ABRAHAM CHERIAN SRI.K.U.PAULOSE (KAIPPILINGATTIL) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT' KERALA 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 22415 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 13, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner's grievance is regarding the delay on the part of the 1st respondent in initiating and continuing revenue recovery proceedings against the 3rd respondent. 2. Petitioner submits that he was the claimant in MVOP 28/1997 before the MACT, Pala, in which Ext.P1 award was passed directing the 3rd respondent to pay compensation. According to the petitioner, as he was aggrieved by Ext.P1 award, he filed an appeal as MACA 1343/2004 before this Court, in which the compensation was enhanced by Ext.P2 judgment. Despite the finality that the award has attained, compensation was not paid and therefore the petitioner sought for recovery of the amount due to him by taking recourse of revenue recovery proceedings. It is stated that though a requisition in this behalf was made, recovery proceedings was not initiated or continued and on account of the delay in this matter, this WP(C) 22415/08 2 petition is filed praying for expediting recovery. 3. The case was adjourned with a direction to the Government Pleader to obtain instructions in the matter. Today, on instructions, the learned Government Pleader submits that recovery proceedings have already been initiated, and that notice under secs.7 and 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act has been served on the defaulter on 4.8.2008 and that further action in pursuance thereof will be continued. From the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, it is therefore evident that they have initiated proceedings and are earnestly continuing the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. If that be so, the grievance of the petitioner is unfounded. 4. Be that as it may, it is directed that the 1st respondent shall continue the revenue recovery proceedings and take it to its logical conclusion, without any delay in this matter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-