IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1892 of 2008(A) PETITIONER: -------------------- N.UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE SRI.KESAVANKUTTY PILLAI, "AYIRATHU" HOUSE CHENTHAPOOR, DECENT JUNCTION P.O., KOLLAM 691577 (NOW RESIDING AT EDAVILAKAM VEEDU, PULIYARAKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.) BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR SRI.C.A.NAVAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE H.D.F.C BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, VAZHUTHAKKADU BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1892 of 2008 W ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 revenue recovery notice initiated by respondents 1 and 2 at the instance of the 3rd respondent for recovery of amounts due to the 3rd respondent from the petitioner. What has been produced in the writ petition is a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, Ext.P2, which is a communication from the Tahsildar, Kollam to the Village Officer, Thrikovilvattom, to take possession of the property mentioned therein under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. In my view, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2, his remedy lies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. W.P.(C).NO.1892/08 :: 2 :: 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an inconvenience in moving the Debt Recovery Tribunal for a few weeks, on account of the fact that the Tribunal is, apparently, not sitting. Now, taking note of this aspect, the writ petition is disposed of holding that the petitioner may, if aggrieved by Ext.P2, move the Debt Recovery Tribunal. To enable the petitioner to do so, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today. It is made clear that if the petitioner has already been dispossessed from the property mentioned in Ext.P2, the order to keep the proceedings in abeyance will be operative only from today. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge W.P.(C).NO.1892/08 :: 3 ::