IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23969 of 2008(C)
1. GEORGE JAMES
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY
... Respondent
2. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE KURUVILLA(ALAPPUZHA)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :13/08/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 23969 of 2008
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated: AUGUST 13, 2008
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this writ petition is against
Exts.P8(a) and P8(b).
2. It is seen that the petitioner was issued Exts.P2
and P4 permits on 15.1.2003 and 24.2.2003 respectively for
mining 250 metric tons of sand each. The conditions
specified in the permits include one requiring back filling
of the excavated land. The petitioner did not comply with
that condition of the licences and though the petitioner has
justifications for his default, the fact remains that the
licence conditions have not been complied with. He was
issued Exts.P5 and P6 notices to which Ext.P7 is the reply
that has been given by the petitioner.
3. Now the petitioner has been served Exts.P8(a)
and P8(b) revenue recovery notices issued under secs.7 and
34 of the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of
WP(C) 23969/08
2
Rs.17,16,302/-, allegedly towards the cost of back filling the
excavated portion of the land. It is challenging Exts.P8(a)
and P8(b), this writ petition has been filed.
4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has
urged several contentions impugning the validity of the
revenue recovery proceedings initiated, the only contention
that deserves acceptance is that quantification of the
liability as reflected in Exts.P8(a) and P8(b) is without
notice to him. It is the settled legal position that when the
liability of a defaulter is quantified, he should be put on
notice and that his version should also be taken into
account. This has not been done in this case and for that
reason Exts.P8(a) and P8(b) cannot be enforced.
5. It is directed that the 2nd respondent shall
quantify the liability of the petitioner in pursuance to
Exts.P5 and P6 with notice to the petitioner and thereafter
it will be open to the respondents to recover the dues. It is
directed that such quantification shall be done as
WP(C) 23969/08
3
expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within eight weeks
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Exts.P8(a) and P8(b)
will stand quashed. Once the liability is quantified as
above, it will be open to the respondents to initiate fresh
proceedings for recovery of the dues..
6. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment
before the 2nd respondent for compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
mt/-