Quashed

Andrews Kattikkana v. the Deputy Tahsildar and Others

Kerala HC8 Oct 2012WP(C)/10777/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging revenue recovery notices. Court held that where breach is denied and liability is disputed, proceedings cannot proceed without impartial determination of these questions unless contract authorizes it.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P5 and P6 Revenue Recovery proceedings were quashed without prejudice to the right of the Panchayath to proceed in accordance with law.

Andrews Kattikkana Vs the Deputy Tahsildar… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/16TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 10777 of 2010 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANDREWS KATTIKKANA,S/O.ANDREWS, AGED 56 YEARS, AMBALAKUNNU GIRIJAN COLONY, HOUSE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE, KAKKAYAM, KOORACHUND, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI

¶9

SRI.V.A.SATHEESH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

2. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, KOORACHUND GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOORACHUND, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMBIL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 10777 of 2010 (V)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXT.P1	: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 09.08.2001.
EXT.P2	: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATION OF THE RECEIPT OF MOBILIZATION AMOUNT BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 09.08.2001.
EXT.P3	: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18.09.2007.
EXT.P4	: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3, 15.09.2009.
EXT.P5	: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE SENT BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 19.02.2010.
EXT.P6	: TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT NOTICE SENT BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 19.02.2010.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.10777 of 2010

¶25

Dated this the 08^th day of October, 2012

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Petitioner was the Chairman of a Committee constituted by the second respondent for construction of 8 houses in the Kakkayam Adivasi Colony. For that purpose, he entered into an agreement dated 09.08.2001 with the second respondent and received advances also. The case of the petitioner is that on account of the breach committed by the respondents, the work in question could not be completed. Finally, the Panchayath issued Ext.P3 notice to him saying that he had received an excess payment of Rs.96,600/- and that with interest at 18% thereon, he should repay Rs.1,74,846/-. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner disputed the breach alleged against him and also the liability itself by filing Ext.P4 reply. The Panchayath thereafter, initiated Revenue Recovery action against the petitioner as per Exts.P5 and 6. It is on account of the above, the writ petition was filed.

¶28

I heard the counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

W.P.(C).No10777/2010

¶30

: 2 :

¶31

The relationship of the petitioner and the second respondent is contractual and the case of the petitioner is that the work in question could not be completed on account of the reasons beyond his control and he does not admit of having committed any breach of contract. He also disputes his liability to repay the amount demanded in the notice. It is despite the denial of breach and the dispute on the quantum of liability sought to be recovered that revenue recovery proceedings were initiated.

¶32

The Panchayath has not so far filed any counter affidavit in this writ petition.

¶33

It is the settled position of law when breach of contract is denied, the question of breach should be decided by an impartial third party, unless the contract itself authorises one of the parties to decide on the breach itself. The Panchayath has not produced any material before this Court to conclude that the contract authorised the Panchayath to decide on the breach. In such a situation, when the petitioner disputed the breach and also the quantum of liability, the

¶34

W.P.(C).No10777/2010

¶35

: 3 :

¶36

Panchayath could not have, in the absence of determination of those questions by an impartial third party, proceeded to

¶37

initiate Revenue Recovery action to realise the amount claimed by it.

¶38

Therefore, I am unable to sustain Exts.P5 and P6 Revenue Recovery proceedings and these notices are therefore, quashed. This shall be without prejudice to right of the Panchayath to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶39

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶40

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶41

Andrews Kattikkana v. the Deputy Tahsildar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andrews Kattikkana v. the Deputy Tahsildar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaleela Vs Manager, Bank of Maharashtra

M/S.Wipro Limited Vs the State of Kerala

The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

T.K.Siju Vs C.Vijayamohan

Radhika Jayan Vs the Intelligence Office (Ib)

Edward Earth Movers Vs State of Kerala and Another