Petitioner challenged recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act for work done in 1998-99. Court held proceedings barred by three-year prohibition under Section 243 of Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. Recovery set aside.
Recovery proceedings at Exts. P2 and P3 are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2017/11TH JYAISHTA, 1939
WP(C).No. 775 of 2009 (P)
PETITIONER :
E.T. ASOKAN, ELIATHU THARAYIL, EDAPPAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DT.
BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE SECRETARY, PONANI BLOCK PANCHAYATH & BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
PONANI BLOCK, PANCHAYATH, PONANI-679 577
2. THE DEPUTY THASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, PONANI- 679 577
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. A.C.VIDHYA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).NO.775/2009
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 31/03/99 BETWEEN THE CONVENER AND 1ST RESPONDENT |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 11/12/08 ISSUED U/S 34 OF R/R ACT. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 11/12/08 ISSUED U/S 34 OF R/R ACT. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING WORK DONE. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C).NO.36333/08 DATED 17/12/08 |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
W.P(C) No. 775 of 2009 P
Dated this the 01st day of June, 2017 J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, the Chairman of the Beneficiary
Committee is aggrieved by the recovery proceedings initiated
under the Revenue Recovery Act as is seen from Exts.P2 and
P3. The petitioner admits that a work of Rs.4,00,000/- was
granted to the Beneficiary Committee of which the petitioner
was the Chairman. The Convenor expired in the year 2004.
The agreement number is seen as 53/98-99 and the work was
with respect to construction of side protection wall between the property of E.T Karuppan and Ellathuthara Chira of around 215.5 mtrs. The total estimated expense was
Rs.4,00,000/-. The Convenor had obtained disbursement of
Rs.3,43,000/- which was expended for the work carried out.
WPC.No. 775/2009
: 2 :
The work could not be completed fully for reason of the
Panchayath having not disbursed the balance amounts.
Absolutely no proceedings were taken against the Beneficiary Committee members for all these years and the petitioner contends that in any event, no money can be recovered from
the petitioner alone, who was the Chairman. There is also no measurement conducted or evaluation of the work admittedly
carried out.
The agreement is dated 31.03.1999. The proceedings for recovery is taken in the year 2008. It is also to be noticed that
the entire amounts disbursed to the Beneficiary Committee was sought to be recovered. Despite notice to the Panchayath none appears. There is no case set up as to any proceedings
having been taken against the Beneficiary Committee
WPC.No. 775/2009
: 3 :
members nor is there an adjudication of money expended for
the completed work.
Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 speaks of prohibition of any destraint made after the expiration of three years. There is
nothing on record to show when the amounts are disbursed or
work commenced and partly completed. As has been noticed
above, the work was of the year 1998-99 the recovery is of the
year 2008. Definitely the same cannot be sustained. The
recovery proceedings at Exts.P2 and P3 are set aside.
Writ petition would stand allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
jma
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) //true copy//
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether recovery proceedings under Section 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act initiated in 2008 against work done in 1998-99 are barred under Section 243 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 due to expi
Whether the petitioner, the Chairman of the Beneficiary Committee, can be held liable for the entire outstanding amount without measurement or evaluation of the work carried out.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
E.T. ASOKAN
THE SECRETARY, PONANI BLOCK PANCHAYATH & BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
THE DEPUTY THASILDAR
STATE OF KERALA
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
