High Court Kerala High Court

A.T.Mohammedkutty vs The Tahsildar on 13 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
A.T.Mohammedkutty vs The Tahsildar on 13 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29106 of 2008(M)


1. A.T.MOHAMMEDKUTTY,S/O. ALAVI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE TAHSILDAR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. P.P.DAMODARAN, S/O. KELU NAIR

3. THAYIL SAJEER, S/O. MOOSA

4. P.P.SUBAIR, S/O. P.K.HASHIM

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :13/10/2008

 O R D E R
                        K. M. JOSEPH, J.
                 --------------------------------------
                 W.P.C. NO. 29106 OF 2008 M
                  --------------------------------------
                Dated this the 13th October, 2008

                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner suffered an ex parte award. He has filed a

petition to set aside the ex parte order, accompanied by an

application for condoning the delay of 462 days. In the

meantime, revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated.

Petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P4 which are the demand

notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act and seeks a

declaration that the petitioner is not liable to compensate the

second respondent and to direct the Tribunal to pass orders on

Exts.P5 and P6 without delay. According to petitioner, he sold

the vehicle on 16.12.1991 to one Shri A.P. Assu Haji and

thereafter the fourth respondent purchased the vehicle from Shri

A.P. Assu Haji on 19.12.1995 and the fourth respondent is the

registered owner of the vehicle even now. The accident which

is the subject matter of the award, according to petitioner, took

place on 27.3.2000 and according to him, immediately upon

WPC. 29106/08 M 2

receipt of Exts.P3 and P4 notices, he has filed Exts.P5 and P5(a)

and P6 series. Even though notices were seen served by special

messenger and affixiture on respondents 2 to 4, there is

appearance only for the third respondent.

2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the third respondent. Having gone

through the Writ Petition, I feel that the revenue recovery

proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 should be kept in

abeyance for some time. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is

disposed of as follows:

Recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 will be

kept in abeyance for a period of three months from today. This

is to enable the petitioner to move for appropriate orders.

K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

kbk.