IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22181 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHACKO MATHEW @ I.C.MATHEW, MADATHIL VEEDU, MAZHUKEER MURI, THIRUVANVANDUR, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.CHINNAN SRI.BINU MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVANVANDUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689121. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689121. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (ADDL.), CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689121. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689121. 5. THE COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001. 6. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI V.VIJULAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22181 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DT.17/03/2011 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 10 DEMAND NOTICE DT.4/7/2011 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 1 NOTICE DT.4/7/2011 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.18/06/2003 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.18/06/2003 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS/STATEMENT DT.2/8/2011 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DT.2/8/2011 RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NIL \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.22181/2011-W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. The recovery sought for is towards the arrears of Royalty. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recovery proposed cannot be justified. Apart from that, against the revenue recovery proceedings the petitioner has filed an objection statement before the District Collector as per Ext.P6. Against the order dated 18/06/2003 produced as Ext.P5 herein, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The allegation going by Ext.P5 is that the petitioner had unauthorisedly removed sand. 3. Learned Government Pleader on getting instructions submitted that the appeal is belated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order was not served on the petitioner. W.P.(C). No.22181/2011 -:2:- 4. There will be a direction to the fourth respondent to take a decision on Ext.P7 appeal with notice to the petitioner and after affording an effective opportunity of hearing within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Depending upon the order, the objections raised by the petitioner against the Revenue Recovery Proceedings will be considered by the District Collector thereafter within another period of two months. The coercive action initiated against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance till orders are passed as above. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of the Judgment before the District Collector (R.R) and the Revenue Divisional Officer for compliance. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms