Dismissed

Wilfred v. District Collector

Kerala HC10 Jun 2019WA/973/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the appeal filed by a petitioner challenging the dismissal of his writ petition. The impugned order upheld a revenue recovery proceeding for electricity dues. The High Court observed no error in the lower appellate court's dismissal and the revisional authority's order, noting that the petitioner had voluntarily sought time to pay.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed. The petitioner was allowed to discharge the liability in six equal monthly instalments to comply with the directions of the learned Judge in the impugned judgment.

Wilfred Vs District Collector — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶6

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

WA.No. 973 of 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21137/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 4.12.2018.

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

WILFRED,

¶11

AGED 69 YEARS,S/O MANUEL, PADINJARETHARPOIKA, PADAPPAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY ZACHARIAH

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM, PIN-691 501.

¶15

2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR), ASRAMOM, KOLLAM-691 501.

¶16

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAVAN (NOW PERAYAM), KOLLAM-691 508.

¶17

4 SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUNDARA, KOLLAM, PIN-691 508.

¶18

5 COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY, SC, KUNDARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.A.No.973 of 2019

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Hrishikesh Roy, C.J.

¶24

This Appeal is filed by the writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the W.P.(C)No.21137 of 2015. That case was filed to challenge the order dated 24.2.2015 (Ext.P12) of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who was exercising revisional power in respect of the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

¶25

The Commissioner as the revisional authority noted that the Appellant had filed an Original Suit against the revenue recovery proceeding but the same was withdrawn on 14.7.2014 from the Sub Court, Kollam. The Revision Petition under Section 83(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 was initially filed on 31.7.2014 but the same was rejected, which led to attachment of the property of the defaulter.

¶26

When steps were not taken to remit the quantified amount, the sale notice under Section 49(2) in Form No.16 was issued on 29.9.2014 for sale of attached property and at that stage, the defaulter filed the earlier W.P.(C)No.27090 of 2014 before this court.

¶27

The revenue recovery proceeding was then stayed by the High Court on 28.10.2014 with further direction to the Land Revenue Commissioner to consider the Revision Petition on merits, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner and the Grama Panchayat, subject to the deposit of Rs.1,16,000/- by the defaulter, within three weeks. The Appellant remitted the sum of Rs.1,16,000/- on 11.11.2014 and thereafter the Commissioner as the revisional authority, took up the matter.

¶28

The Ext.P12 order was a speaking order, where the Commissioner found that the petitioner had defaulted the payment of electricity dues plus interest and other

¶29

W.A.No.973 of 2019

¶30

¶31

charges, quantified at Rs.2,65,483/-. The remittance of Rs.1,16,000/- was noted by the authority. After due consideration, it was opined in the Ext.P12 order that there is no reasonable ground to interfere with the proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar (RR), Kollam and accordingly, the Revision Petition came to be dismissed.

¶32

When the Ext.P12 order was challenged in the High Court, the learned Judge found that the petitioner's contentions before the revisional authority were duly considered and a reasoned order has been passed. Accordingly, the court concluded that the challenge to the Ext.P12 order has no merit.

¶33

Faced with the above conclusion during the Writ Court proceeding, the petitioner sought time to repay in instalment the quantified sum (Rs.2,06,983/-) with accrued interest since 6.2.2014. This was permitted by the learned Judge stipulating that the dues shall be cleared in three instalments; the first of which shall commence on 3.1.2019. It was however made clear that in case of any default, the benefit of the judgment will not accrue to the petitioner and the authorities are at liberty to proceed with the recovery proceedings.

¶34

The learned counsel Sri.Sunny Zachariah for the Appellant would submit that the quantification of the amount in the revisional proceeding (Ext.P12), was not correct. The counsel's next contention is that the Appellant never sought any instalment facility from the learned Judge.

¶35

On the above aspect, it is clearly discernible from the impugned judgment that the learned Judge meticulously assessed the merit of the speaking order (Ext.P12) of the revisional authority but found no ground to interfere with the recovery ordered by the said authority. The court also noted that the petitioner sought time to remit the dues. Only because of such submission, the instalment re-payment benefit was granted

¶36

W.A.No.973 of 2019

¶37

¶38

to the litigant.

¶39

We have considered the above as also the submission made by the learned standing counsel Sri.Manoj Ramaswamy appearing for the Kundara Grama Panchayat. The State authorities are represented by the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.V.Tekchand.

¶40

The elaborate speaking order passed by the revisional authority (Ext.P12) have been carefully perused. We have also applied our mind to the reasoning given by the learned Judge while dismissing the W.P.(C)No.21137 of 2015. Upon due consideration, we see no error in either of the said decision. Therefore, this Appeal is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶41

Even while dismissing this Writ Appeal, we make it clear that pursuant to the instalment facility granted by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment, if the Appellant discharges the liability in six equal successive monthly instalments commencing from 1.7.2019, then the same shall be treated as in compliance with the directions of the learned Judge in the impugned judgment. If the Appellant defaults in any single instalment, he will lose the benefit of this judgment. In that case, the recovery proceeding initiated against him can continue from the stage at which, they presently stand.

¶42

Sd/- Hrishikesh Roy, Chief Justice

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

vpv

¶45

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, Judge /TRUE COPY/

¶46

P.A. TO JUDGE

Wilfred v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wilfred v. District Collector

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

Ajith Kumar, Vs Pradeep T.A.

Dr.Shivanandan Vs Bank of India

Dr.Nizar Kochery,Kocheries Foundation Vs Dr.Prakash Kumar

P.S.Parameswaran Nambeesan Vs the Thrissur Municipal Corporation

State of Kerala, Vs Amal Krishnan C.V

Thomas Eloor Vs University of Calicut