Disposed

Saud Vayanoli Poyil v. Deputy Tahsildar

Kerala HC29 Jan 2021WP(C)/2376/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, facing demand notices for arrears of licence fees and an attachment notice, sought a writ for payment via installment due to financial hardship. The Court granted thirteen-month monthly installments, stayed further recovery proceedings, and warned against future modification petitions.

What did the court decide?

Arrears of licence fees to be paid in 10 equal monthly installments starting 05.02.2021; further recovery proceedings kept in abeyance upon compliance.

Saud Vayanoli Poyil Vs Deputy Tahsildar — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.2376 OF 2021(V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SAUD VAYANOLI POYIL AGED 45 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA HAJI VAYANOLI POYIL, THEKKUMMURI, THRIPPANGOTTUR-670 693.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR THALASSERY TALUK, THALASSERY-670 101.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY,

¶12

CALICUT CORPORATION, CALICUT-673 001.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, BY ADV.SRI.V KRISHNA MENON, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P(C).No.2376 of 2021

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The limited prayer of the petitioner, who is faced with Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices for arrears of licence fees, is for the grant of instalments to discharge the said liability.

¶19

2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1 st respondent and also the learned Standing counsel for the 2 nd respondent.

¶20

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar and also taking into account the plea of financial hardship raised by the petitioner, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:

¶21

(i) if the petitioner pays the amounts demanded in Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices under the Revenue Recovery Act in 10 equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 1 5.02.2021 , then further proceedings for recovery shall be kept in abeyance.

¶22

(ii) It is made clear that if the petitioner commits a default in respect of any of the installments, he

¶23

W.P(C).No.2376 of 2021

¶24

¶25

will lose the benefit of this judgment and the respondents will be free to continue the recovery proceedings against him from the stage at which they presently stand.

¶26

(iii) It is further made clear that inasmuch as it is in exceptional cases that this Court would grant the reliefs aforementioned, no further petition for modification/extension of time will be entertained.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶29

mns/29.01.2021

¶30

W.P(C).No.2376 of 2021

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 30.06.2020. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR THE ATTACHMENT OF LAND DATED 30.06.2020. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29.12.2020. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE CALICUT CORPORATION DATED 29.12.2020.

¶35

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

P.A TO JUDGE

Saud Vayanoli Poyil v. Deputy Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saud Vayanoli Poyil v. Deputy Tahsildar

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

Sarojini Amma K. Vs Udayamperur Panchayath

Jophy Vs the Local Level Monitoring Committee

Rajan, Vs State of Kerala

Moosa, Vs the District Collector Kozhikode

Jeethu Martin Vs State of Kerala

Surendran Vs Aji