Kerala High Court
P.V.Aboobacker vs The District Collector
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/14TH POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 179 of 2013 (V)
-------------------------
OA.62/2012 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
P.V.ABOOBACKER,
S/O AVIRA HAJI, THANIMA HOUSE, KALATHODE
THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.SASI
SMT.T.M.BINITHA
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR 686 001
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
THRISSUR- 686020
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BRANCH, PALAKKAD 678001
4. DR. P.V. MAJEED,
HIBA PADANORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM 690518
BY SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 179 of 2013
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A NO 62/2012
EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT, 1968
EXT. P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 2ND REPSONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT, 1968
EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 22589/2012 DATED 19-11-
2012
/true copy/
sd/- P.A. To Judge
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
........................................
W.P.(C).179/2013
..............................................
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2013
JUDGMENT
According to the petitioner, while he was abroad, 4th respondent purchased a property in his name. Subsequently, it appears that the petitioner gave his power of attorney to the 4th respondent who is none other than his brother. 4th respondent allegedly mortgaged the petitioner's property to the Bank. He committed default and an O.A filed by the Bank is pending before the DRT.
2. Meanwhile, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the 4th respondent. There upon, 4th respondent approached this Court and filed W.P. (C).22589/12. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing consideration of an OTS proposal submitted by the 4th respondent and keeping the recovery proceedings in abeyance, in the meanwhile.
W.P.(C).179/13 2
3. Petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that the Bank did not communicate any order on the OTS proposal made by the 4th respondent and that in the meanwhile, revenue recovery proceedings are continued against him also.
4. Learned Standing Counsel who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that OTS proposal made by the 4th respondent was considered and rejected and that the same has been communicated to him also. If that be so, contention of the petitioner that it was without passing orders as directed by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment recovery proceedings are continued, is incorrect.
5. Insofar as the legality of the revenue recovery action is concerned, admittedly, W.P.(C).179/13 3 substantial amounts are due to the Bank. Petitioner is also a defaulter. Bank is an institution notified under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act. In such a case, recovery proceedings now initiated by the Bank is unassailable.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed. Needless to say that this judgment shall not be the prejudice of the Bank in the proceedings before the DRT.
Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge