IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 22831 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ REENA C., AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.BINOY, CHAPPAN VEEDU, CHERUVAPADY, PETTIKUNDU PO, PIN-671 313, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH, SMT.M.SHAZIA SULTHANA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE BACAKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,"SENTINEL", 2ND FLOOR, TC-25/588 (7) & (8), PATTOOR, VANCHIYOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-35, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KERALA STATE BACAKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, DISTRICT OFFICE, HIGHDANE PLAZA, M.G.ROAD, KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, (REVENEUE RECOVERY) HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, K.S.B.C.DEVP. CON. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 22831/2010-D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.6114 DATED 13/04/2010 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.E4-24/10-11/KSBCDC DATED 30/06/2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND PRIOR TO THE ATTACHEMENT NO.E4- 24/10-11/KSBCDC DATED 30/06/2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE OTS APPLICATION AND REQUEST FOR INSTALLMENT FACILITY DATED 12/07/2010 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 22831 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner had availed a loan from the 1st respondent corporation during the year 2008 to the tune of Rs.50,000/- by mortgaging property having an extent of 31 ¾ cents, comprised in Resurvey No.118/1-A1 of Chemani Village of Hosdurg Taluk. Consequent to default committed in repayment, revenue recovery steps were initiated at the behest of respondents 1 and 2. Notices were issued seeking attachment of the property in question, under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner is impugning the revenue recovery steps on the ground that notices issued under sections 7 and 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act were not in compliance with the procedure contemplated under the Statute. It is also contended that the petitioner had approached respondents 1 and 2 seeking for one time settlement of the loan account, which was not acceded to by them. W.P.(C) No. 22831/2010 2 2. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that Ext.P4 representation seeking settlement of the loan account was submitted in July, 2010. In fact a scheme for one time settlement was in operation till 31-3-2010. But the petitioner had not opted to take benefit of the scheme during the relevant time . Since no scheme is prevailing at present, the request made in Ext.P4 could not be considered. 3. I am of the opinion that none of the grounds raised against sustainability of the revenue proceedings, merits consideration. Under such circumstances, interference to restrain the revenue recovery proceedings is not at all possible in this proceedings. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court for granting reasonable time to pay off the entire liability, in instalments. It is noticed that pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court on 21-7- 2010, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Going by Exts.P2 and P3 the amount due is Rs.56,649/- with W.P.(C) No. 22831/2010 3 interest due thereon from 13-4-2010 onwards. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to show indulgence in permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time in instalments. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to keep all further coercive steps pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 in abeyance, provided the petitioner remits the entire amount due, in five equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30-9-2010 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalments, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps. It is also made clear that the petitioner is precluded from raising any challenge in future against the proceedings if any initiated, either by approaching this Court or any other forum. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.