This single-judge writ petition challenged service of recovery notices for a loan default due to lack of land description details. The Court quashed the notices as patently illegal but allowed the matter to be pursued via statutory action on default.
Quashed Exts.P1 and P2 notices and allowed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2015/11TH CHAITHRA, 1937
WP(C).No.165 of 2015 (U)
PETITIONER:
PRADEEP.E,AGED 32 YEARS,S/O.EBENSEER, MANALIVILAPUTHEN VEEDU,AMACHAL, KATTAKADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV.SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE TAHSILDAR,REVENUE RECOVERY,KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695572.
2. DENA BANK,RAJADHANI BUILDING,EAST FORT, REP.BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SAIDALAVI K.K R2 BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT.K.R.MONISHA SRI.BOBY C. BABY SRI.ANOOP BHASKAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
pk
WP(C).No.165 of 2015 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-P1:COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01.12.2014 UNDER 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P2:COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01.12.2014 UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
pk
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
W.P.(C). No. 165 of 2015
===================================================== Dated this the 1st day of April, 2015
JUDGMENT
The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P1 and P2 notices that have been served on the petitioner for recovery of loan amounts that are due from the petitioner to the 2nd respondent bank. The challenge in the writ petition, against Exts.P1 and P2 notices, is that the said notices do not contain any of the details that are required to be contained in notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, so as to enable the petitioner to gather the identity and description of the land that was sought to be proceeded against.
-2-
W.P.(C). No. 165 of 2015
reveal the description of the land that is sought to be proceeded against in connection with the attachment proceedings that are contemplated therein. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 notices. Accordingly, I quash Exts.P1 and P2 notices, and allow the writ petition, making it clear that, nothing in this judgment will prevent the respondents from initiating any action against the petitioner, in the event of a default committed by the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
das
1 issue framed by the court
Whether service of recovery notices under the Revenue Recovery Act without land description renders them illegal?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Pradeep.E
The Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, Kattakada
Dena Bank
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
