Kerala High Court
Radhakrishna Pillai vs District Collector on 9 January, 2017
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/19TH POUSHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 698 of 2017 (J)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI,
S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
JAYALEKI BHAVAN, KULANGARABHAG,
CHAVARA, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOLLAM - 695 001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 695 001.
3. VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHAVARA VILLAGE OFFICE
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 695 001.
4. SREEJAMBIKA,
S/O. GIRIJA
THEKKETHARAMEL VEEDU, NEEDAMURI,
NEEDAKKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 695 001.
R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 698 of 2017 (J)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7
OF REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 34
OF REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
msv/
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.698 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2017
JUDGMENT
Exts.P1 and P2 proceedings initiated under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act are under challenge before this court. Admittedly the said proceedings are initiated based on the order passed by the Family Court, Chavara in M.C. No.313/2013. According to the petitioner, being aggrieved, petitioner has preferred RP(FC) No.2629/2016 along with delay petition and this court has ordered notice on the delay petition. In the meanwhile, Exts.P1 and P2 recovery proceedings are initiated and petitioner is being threatened with removal of movable properties by the recovery authorities. It is in this background, this writ petition is filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner.
3. The sole question to be considered is whether W.P.(C). No.698 of 2017 2 interference is required in Exts.P1 and P2, revenue recovery proceedings. Admittedly the same is issued on the basis of an order passed by the Family Court. Therefore, if at all any interference is to be made, it can only be done by the revisional court. Petitioner has a case that he has preferred revision, but, however due to delay the revision petition is not considered by the court. I do not think that, in the nature of facts and circumstances, it is not proper on the part of this court to interfere with Exts.P1 and P2. However, in order to enable the petitioner to pursue the remedies as per the revision filed by the petitioner, proceedings pursuant to Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act shall be kept in abeyance, for a period of one month from today. Proceedings pursuant to Section 34 will be guided by the orders passed by the revisional court in the revision proceeding pending before this court.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE smv 9.1.2017