IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 23168 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI.M.KASIM, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.LATE MUHAMMED, B1, GALAXY EDIFICE, VAZHAKKALA P.O., KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KANAYANNUR TALUK. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 23168 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 demand notice issued under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, for realisation of a sum of Rs.44,160/-. According to the petitioner, before issuing Ext.P1, he has not been served with any notice of demand and that he was totally unaware about the nature of the amount sought to be recovered. On behalf of the second respondent, a statement was filed which revealed that the petitioner while working as Tahsildar, Karunagappally, was personally implicated in a suit filed by a person claiming damages on account of some unauthorised official actions, as second defendant. The said suit, O.S. No. 228/1995 was decreed by the Additional Sub Court, Kollam, holding that the defendants are liable for payment of Rs.96,000/- along with interest to the plaintiff. Government is the first defendant in the suit, in which Ext.P1 judgment and decree was passed. It is stated that the defendants have taken up the decree in appeal before this Court in RFA 460/2003, which was unsuccessful. 2. It is further mentioned in the statement when revenue recovery steps were initiated by the Government against co-defendants in the suit, WP(C) No. 10964/2007 was filed by them before this Court and 2 WP(C) No. 23168/2010 this Court had restrained such action, clarifying that only if the Government discharges the liability under the decree it will be open to take any steps against other defendants. It is further stated that after satisfying the decree, the Government initiated proceedings to recover the amount from all the co-defendants on a proportionate basis. One of the co-defendants again challenged the recovery steps in WP(C) No. 1179/2010. Annexure R2(c) is the judgment in that Writ Petition. This Court, referring to judgment in WP (C) No. 10964/2007, held that the Government having satisfied liability under the decree is very much entitled to get the due amount recovered from the petitioner therein. It is observed that by virtue of the joint and several liability created under the decree, the petitioner therein become a debtor to the Government and in such circumstance, the Government is justified in resorting to machinery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realising such amounts. 3. The petitioner had filed a reply affidavit narrating facts leading to filing of the civil suit and contending that the petitioner was not actually liable for payment of damages, which is decreed in the civil suit. It is also contended that the petitioner was not having proper notice with respect to the civil suit as well as with respect to the appeal filed before this Court. I am afraid, I cannot consider such contention in this Writ Petition, since the decree has already attained finality. The petitioner by name was implicated 3 WP(C) No. 23168/2010 as defendant in the suit as well as in the appeal and as such the decree is binding on him. The decree cannot be reviewed or reconsidered in this Writ Petition. If the petitioner has got any case that either the decree in the civil suit or the judgment in the appeal was happened to be issued without notice to him, his remedy lies elsewhere. 4. Having considered nature of the liability as well as Annexure R2(c) judgment passed by this Court, I am of the opinion that the dispute raised against the liability is un-sustainable. However, it is noticed that before initiating the steps for revenue recovery, the requisitioning authority, who is the Tahsildar, Karunagappally, has not raised any demand against the petitioner. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner the judgments in WP(C) No.10964/2007 or WP(C) 1179/2010 are not binding on the petitioner as he was not a party to those proceedings. I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be provided with an opportunity to raise objections if any available against the liability, before proceeding with the recovery steps. 5. Under such circumstance, the petitioner can raise objections against the liability fixed upon him in this regard. If the petitioner makes any such objection before the Tahsildar, Karunagappally, within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and a speaking order need be issued on the same. The recovery steps initiated pursuant to the 4 WP(C) No. 23168/2010 impugned notice shall be kept in abeyance until such proceedings is finalized. Needless to mention that amount if any paid by the petitioner will be appropriated subject to decision taken on the basis of such objections to be submitted. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc