Partly allowed

C.Kunjamma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2008WP(C)/1889/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declined to determine the nature of funds received by a Scheduled Caste member for building construction. It directed the Government to treat it as a grant/subsidy or loan pending inquiry and stay revenue recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Stayed proceedings under Ext.P2; directed first respondent to form an opinion within six months on the nature of disbursed funds.

C.Kunjamma Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 1889 of 2008(Y)

PETITIONER:

SMT.C.KUNJAMMA, D/O.LATE CHANDRAN, KOZHITHUNDIL VEEDU, POOCHAKULAM, THEKKETHODU P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

THE SECRETARY, KONNI BLOCK PANCHAYATH, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.GIRI, J

¶19

W.P.(C).1889/2008

¶20

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2008

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

There is a dispute as to whether the amount received by the petitioner, a member of the scheduled caste, under the Indira Avaz Yojana, for construction of a building in her own land, is a grant or a subsidy or a loan. The averments made in the writ petition, reveal acute penury when the petitioner is not in a position to even complete the construction. But in the meanwhile, steps have been taken to recover an amount of Rs.30,002/from the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P1 issued by the Block Development Officer. Thereafter, it has been followed by proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act as evidenced by Ext.P2.

¶23

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader, I am of the view that the petitioner's grievance ought to be considered by the Government in the first instance.

¶24

W.P.(C).1889/2008

¶25

¶26

In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:-

¶27

Petitioner may prefer a detailed representation before the first respondent within one month from today indicating her contention as to whether the amount disbursed to her was either a loan or a grant or a subsidy. On receipt of such representation first respondent shall conduct necessary enquiries and take appropriate decision thereon within six months from the date of receipt of representation. All further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance till the Government takes a decision in the manner aforementioned. Other contentions of the petitioner are left open.

¶28

V.GIRI, Judge

¶29

mrcs

C.Kunjamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Kunjamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devakumar Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Vijayakumar & Another Vs J.Sathyadas & Others

Sunil Kumar.K.S. Vs Chief General Manager, Hoc Ltd.

A.K.Pareed Vs Tahsildar,Mukundapuram Taluk & Others

V.S.Venugopal Vs the Chief Judicial Magistrate

Lathika.L. Vs State of Kerala