Kerala High Court
Benny K.J vs The Asst. Executive Engineers on 31 July, 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1939
WP(C).No. 3849 of 2010
---------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
BENNY K.J., S/O.JACOB,
AGED 26 YEARS, KANAPPILLY HOUSE,
MANJUMMEL, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O.,
VIA.ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY,
HOLDER SMT.SHAIJA, W/O.JACOB, AGED 52,
KANAPPILLY HOUSE, MANJUMMEL, ELOOR,
UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O., VIA. ALUVA.
BY ADV.SRI.K.S.AJAYAGHOSH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEERS,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION,
KALAMASSERY.
2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),
TALUK OFFICE, PARAVUR.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ELOOR VILLAGE, ELOOR.
R1 BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC
SRI.M.DINESH, SC
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC
R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 20-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 3849 of 2010
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
----------------------
EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4448 OF 2000,
DATED 31.7.2000 SRO, ALANGAD.
EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.ELR/RR/860 DATED 7.1.10
TOGETHER WITH DETAILS REGARDING THE ARREARS ISSUED
BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER FORM 1,
NO.C 6-151/09-10/KWA DATED 25.8.09 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
---------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
mbr/
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
.........................................
W.P.(C).No.3849 of 2010
..........................................
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2018.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 demand raised by the Water Authority and Ext.P3 revenue recovery proceedings to recover water charge dues from the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that he has not obtained any water connection. He purchased the shop room in respect of such connection was provided in the year 2000. At the time of the purchase, he was a minor and represented through his mother. Therefore it is alleged that connection was given to the previous owner and dues have to be collected from the previous owner.
2. In the counter it is stated that water charges are collected based on the agreement and Sri. George Sebastian, the previous owner, settled the demand up to 24.7.2009. The water supply was finally disconnected on 27.7.2007.
3. It appears that the Water Authority is claiming water charges payable after the sale made to the petitioner. Considering the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with the following directions:
i. If the petitioner is prepared to pay the amount claimed in Exts.P1 and P2, it shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ii. In that event, without claiming interest the Water W.P.(C).No.3849 of 2010 2 Authority shall settle the liability once for all. iii. However, if the petitioner is failed to pay the amount as above, the Water Authority is free to proceed with the revenue recovery proceedings in accordance with law. iv. The Water Authority shall issue a demand notice to the petitioner noting the fact that they can demand only upto 27.7.2007, the date on which the supply was disconnected.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
cl