Disposed

Sunny v. Dy. Thahsildar (Rr)

Kerala HC18 Feb 2022WP(C)/4826/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a Revenue Recovery notice under Section 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, arguing that the Bank's recovery was pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court held that DT pending does not bar revenue proceedings but directed the Revenue authority to finalize the demand notice considering objections and grant a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to finalize Ext. P1 demand notice within two months, considering Ext. P7 objections and granting hearing; interim stay upheld pending finalization.

Sunny Vs Dy. Thahsildar (Rr) — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4826 OF 2013

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 V.P. SUNNY, S/O. PAUL, VELLIMOOZHIYIL HOUSE, IRUMBAKAMCHOLA P.O. KANJIRAPUZHA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD.

¶8

ADDL. PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 IMPLEADED:

¶9

2 RESMI MATHEW

¶10

D/O LATE V P SUNNY, VELLIMOOZHIYIL HOUSE, IRUMBAKAMCHOLA PO, KANJIRAPUZHA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 591

¶11

3 SURAJ MATHEW

¶12

S/O LATE V P SUNNY, VELLIMOOZHIYIL HOUSE, IRUMBAKAMCHOLA PO, KANJIRAPUZHA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 591.

¶13

4 MANJUSH

¶14

S/O LATE V P SUNNY, VELLIMOOZHIYIL HOUSE, IRUMBAKAMCHOLA PO, KANJIRAPUZHA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 591

¶15

(ADDL. PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.01.2022 IN IA 1/2022)

¶16

BY ADV SRI.VARGHESE PREM

¶17

RESPONDENT/S:

¶18

1 DY. THAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD - 678 001

¶19

2 STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KANJIRAMPUZHA BRANCH - PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶20

R1 - SRI.K.P.HARISH,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 – SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C) No. 4826/2013

¶23

: 2 :

¶24

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2022.

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

T his writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following

¶27

reliefs:

¶28

A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext. P1 and all further proceedings pursuant to the same as illegal and baseless.

¶29

A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent not to proceed against the petitioner until the amounts due from the petitioner is quantified as per proceedings in O.A. No. 330/11 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

¶30

The subject issue relates to Ext. P1 notice dated 16.11.2012 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Mannarkkad, Palakkad District, 1^st respondent, under Section 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 dealing with demand to be served prior to the attachment of land. Apparently, the petitioner has submitted Ext. P7 objection to the notice in detail, and contended that the quantification of the amount for recovery is not correct, and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount which are not due from the petitioner.

¶31

Anyhow, this matter was pending before this Court from the year 2013. It is true, the stay of further proceedings pertaining to Ext.

¶32

P1 was granted to the petitioner on 19.02.2013 and the same was

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 4826/2013 : 3 :

¶34

extended until further orders on 27.03.2013. However, the subject issue has to attain finality.

¶35

The paramount contention advanced by the petitioner is that the proceedings initiated by the State Bank of India, Kanjirampuzha Branch, Palakkad District, 2^nd respondent, is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Whatever that be, it is a settled position that a proceeding under the Act, 1968 is not prevented, merely because a proceeding is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at the instance of the Bank.

¶36

Now, it is only appropriate that the writ petition is disposed of directing the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Mannarkkad, Palakkad, the first respondent, to finalise the proceedings after taking into consideration Ext. P7 objection submitted by the petitioner.

¶37

Therefore, after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Varghese Prem, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. K.P. Harish and Sri. P. V. Surendranath appearing for the Bank, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to finalise the proceedings pertaining to Ext. P1 demand notice prior to the attachment, after taking into account Ext. P7 objection submitted by the petitioner at the earliest and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 4826/2013

¶39

: 4 :

¶40

be given an opportunity of hearing before finalising the proceedings. Till the finalisation of the proceedings, the interim order granted by this Court on 19.02.2013 will continue to be in force.

¶41

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 4826/2013

¶44

: 5 :

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RR NOTICE COLLECTORATE FILE NO.2012/88859/9. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE INSURANCE CERTIFICATE.

¶48

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶49

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF PASSBOOK NO.A/C 30127273813.

¶50

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF PASSBOOK NO. A/C 30079994688 KCC 891 EXT.P6: TRUE EXTRACT OF THE OA 330/11.

¶51

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE 1ST RESOPNDENT DATED 08.01.2013.

¶52

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶53

EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE HOUSING TERM LOAN ACCOUNT NO. 30127273813.

¶54

EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WITH RESPECT TO THE AGRICULTURAL CASH CREDIT LOAN ACCOUNT NO. 30079994688.

¶55

EXT.R2(c): TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WITH RESPECT TO THE AGRICULTURAL TERM LOAN ACCOUNT NO. 30081843760.

¶56

/True Copy/

¶57

PS TO JUDGE.

¶58

Sunny v. Dy. Thahsildar (Rr)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny v. Dy. Thahsildar (Rr)

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

Vijayakumari Amma Vs Drector, Panchayath Department

P.C. Jamaluddhin Vs the Deputy Director of Panchayats

Roy Scaria Vs the Thiruvambadi Grama Panchayath

Dr. Saji.K Vs S.Aananthakrishnan, IPS

James Vs State of Kerala

Devadas Sukumaran Vs Pradeep Kumar