IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 OP.No. 31418 of 2001(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- T.A.MOIDEEN KUNHI, S/O.T.ABDULLA, PARAPPATH,PULLUR P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), HOSDURG, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ODAYANCHAL BARANCH, ODAYANCHAL P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SHYSON P. MANGHUZHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.51208/2001 IN OP.NO.31418/2001 ---------- DISMISSED 1/9/2008 Sd/- P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27/8/2001 U/S.7 OF R.R. ACT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/9/2001 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P.R.RAMAN, J. --------------------------- O.P.NO.31418 OF 2001 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE IST DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2008 JUDGMENT This original petition is filed challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated for recovery of the loan advanced to the petitioner with interest thereon by a Nationalised Bank through the District Collector. This original petition was filed in 2001. Notice was ordered and interim stay was granted on condition; but process was not paid and it is stated that the process is being paid only today. Thus, there is a delay of 7 years for paying the the process. According to him, the claim is barred by limitation. But in order to entertain the writ petition on the ground of limitation, he should have produced sufficient materials prima facie to show that it is barred by limitation. Even though the loan is stated to have been taken as early as in 1995, the demand notice itself shows that the amount became due only in 2001. The agreement under which the loan was advanced is not produced. -2- O.P.No.31418/2001 Whether any payment is made subsequently is also not known. Whether it is running account is also not pleaded. No foundation is thus laid in this writ petition to grant any relief on the ground of limitation. Hence, this is not a fit case for interference in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner submits that he has got a remedy of approaching the Farmer Debt Relief Commission. This being a loan advanced for agricultural purposes, the filing of this writ petition will not stand in the way of giving him the relief under the said provision. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach other Forums and leaving open the grounds urged in this writ petition, this writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. kcv.