Allowed

Martin Mathew v. the Deputy Tahsildar Revenue Recovery

Kerala HC14 Aug 2014WP(C)/2515/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, former Secretary of 4th respondent society, filed writ challenge to recovery notices for rent arrears. Court held he acted in official capacity and lease made him not personally liable, setting aside notices against him and directing recovery from society.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P17 and P18 (recovery notices) set aside as against the petitioner; writ petition allowed.

Martin Mathew Vs the Deputy Tahsildar… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/23RD SRAVANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 2515 of 2012 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MARTIN MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 40 YEARS, PALLIVATHIKKAL HOUSE, ERATTAYAR P.O., IDUKKI, PIN-685 514.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW SKARIA, SRI.TOMY PAUL.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (AUTHORISED OFFICER), REVENUE RECOVERY, NEDUMKANDAM, PIN-685 553.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, IDUKKI, PIN-685 603.

¶12

3. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,

¶13

IDUKKI DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KATTAPPANA, PIN-685 508.

¶14

4. KATTAPPANA DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, P.V.THOMAS, PARACKAL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA, PIN-685 508.

¶15

5. SAJU ANTONY,

¶16

SECRETARY, KATTAPPANA DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, MUTHOLIL HOUSE, KANCHIAR, KATTAPPANA, PIN-685 511.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.V. LONACHAN, R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE BOBAN, S.C, R4 BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K), SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Prv.

¶20

W.P.(C).NO.2515/2012- L:

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 27-8-2006 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27-4-2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MEMBERS OF 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DT.2-5-2007 OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING OF 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 3-5-2007 FOR THE RECEIPT OF ALL THE RECORDS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY FROM THE PETITIONER BY THE NEW SECRETARY.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.E-OP-303/SC/06 DT.28-4-2010 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DT.12-5-2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO. 96/2010 BEFORE THE KATTAPPANA MUNSIFF COURT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO. 96/2010.

¶31

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 21-7-2008 FROM THE PETITIONER.

¶32

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-2-2008 SUBMITTED BY THE OFFICE BEARERS OF 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY TO THE KATTAPPANA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

¶33

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19-8-2009 GIVEN BY THE OFFICE BEARERS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 26-8-2009 GIVEN BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BOARD TO THE SECRETARY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY.

¶35

EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO. 14/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KATTAPPANA.

¶36

EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ARTICLES STATED TO HAVE TAKEN AWAY BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY.

¶37

EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE TEMPO TRAVELER AMBULANCE BEARING REG.NO.KL-06-D-7004 OWNED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶38

EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE RENT DUES OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY FOR THE PERIOD UP TO 29-12-2010 GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶39

Prv.

¶40

W.P.(C).NO.2515/2012- L:

¶41

EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.A2-421/12(COLLECTORATE FILE NO.2011/49479/6) DATED 11-1-2012 UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶42

EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.A2-421/12(COLLECTORATE FILE NO.2011/49479/6) DATED 11-1-2012 UNDER SECTION 34. OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶43

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

¶48

- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 2515 of 2012

¶49

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶50

Dated this the 14^th day of August, 2014

¶51

J U D G M E N T

¶52

The petitioner is a former Secretary of the 4^th

¶53

respondent Bank who is aggrieved by the recovery notice issued at Exts.P17 and P18. Even going by Ext.P17 it is seen that the requisitioning authority is the 3^rd respondent and the amount demanded is the rent arrears. The petitioner contends that by Ext.P1, the 4^th respondent had taken on lease a building, from the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner who was the Secretary of the 4^th respondent, at that point of time, had executed a lease deed, in which the petitioner as Secretary had represented the 4^th respondent.

¶54

The petitioner had subsequently, resigned from the 4^th respondent, as is evidenced by Ext.P2 which resignation was accepted by the General Body of the 4^th respondent; on 02.05.2007. Ext.P3 is the minutes of the General Body and Ext.P4 is the handing over of the entire documents as also the charge of the Secretary of the 4^th respondent to one P.V Thomas, who had taken charge after

¶55

WPC.No.2515/2012

¶56

: 2 :

¶57

resignation of the petitioner. On notice being issued as seen at Ext.P5, against the petitioner, for recovery of the rent arrears due from the 4^th respondent, the petitioner had responded with a reply notice and had also unsuccessfully filed a suit before the Munsiff's Court, Kattappana. The suit admittedly, was dismissed for the reason of the same being not maintainable against a society. In any event, the demand notice now raised, against the petitioner seeks to recover the arrears of rent due from the 4^th respondent; from the petitioner. The petitioner, even going by Ext.P1 lease deed has not been made personally liable. The petitioner has executed the lease deed only in the capacity of the Secretary as is very clear from the recitals. In such Circumstance, Exts.P17 and P18 are set aside as against the petitioner. The 3^rd respondent is entitled to proceed for recovery against the 4^th respondent, if so advised.

¶58

Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶59

Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶60

jma

¶61

//true copy//

¶62

P.A to Judge

Martin Mathew v. the Deputy Tahsildar Revenue Recovery

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Martin Mathew v. the Deputy Tahsildar Revenue Recovery

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

Radha Gopan Vs South Malabar Gramina Bank

Rojer Mathew P. Vs P.T.Mathai Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Lekha Suresh Vs the Authorised Officer

Janamma Thomas Vs State of Kerala

P.Sivababu Vs Secretaray to the Government

Madhusoodhanan A.V Vs the Syndicate Bank,Rep.by the Chief Manager,Bank Complex, Kottayam