High Court Kerala High Court

V. Govindan vs The District Collector

Kerala High Court
V. Govindan vs The District Collector
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 36362 of 2007(D)


1. V. GOVINDAN, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR,

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

4. LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.RAGHURAJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :/  /

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ===============
                W.P.(C) NO. 36362 OF 2007 D
               =====================

          Dated this the 13th day of December, 2007

                         J U D G M E N T

Petitioner approached this court complaining that the 4th

respondent, with the assistance of the other respondents, was

trying to dispossess him forcefully. It was his contention that

there were no proceedings initiated under the Securitisation Act

and that despite this he was being attempted to be dispossessed.

2. From the submissions made on behalf of the 4th

respondent, it is obvious that petitioner had availed of two loans

mortgaging his property in Ernakulam and another plot of land in

Palakkad. There was default committed and therefore OS 522/05

and 523/05 were filed by the 4th respondent, which were decreed

by the Court. It is stated that even thereafter since the default

continued, proceedings had to be initiated under the

Securitisation Act and notice under Section 13(2) was served on

the petitioner. It is thus evident that proceedings were initiated

and the attempt to take possession was also in pursuance

thereof.

3. Now in view of these facts, petitioner limits his

WPC 36362/07
:2 :

submission to give him a breathing time so that he can dispose of

his property in Cochin and liquidate his liability. He submits that

he has already contracted for the sale of his property and will be

getting a substantial payment soon as advance.

4. I heard the learned counsel for the 4th respondent also

in this matter.

5. Having regard to the submissions that are made, I am

satisfied that the petitioner have made out a case for atleast an

instalment facility for liquidating the liability.

6. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with the

following directions.

1) Before 24th of December, 2007, petitioner shall,

towards his liability to the 4th respondent, remit an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs).

2) Subject to payment as above, proceedings initiated

against the petitioner under the Securitisation Act will stand

deferred.

3) The balance amount that is due to the 4th respondent

shall be paid by the petitioner in three equal monthly

instalments, first of which will be paid on 20th of January, 2008

WPC 36362/07
:3 :

and the subsequent instalments will be payable on 20th of

February and 20th of March 2008.

4) If the petitioner commits default in discharging the

total liability as above, the 4th respondent will be entitled to

continue the proceedings, without further notice.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp