N.Vijayakumar vs The District Collector on 8 January, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25624 of 2009(W)


1. N.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. NEELAKANDA PILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY,

3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.HARISH R. MENON

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :08/01/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
                 -----------------------------
                       W.P(C) No. 25624 of 2009 -W
                 ------------------------------
               Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010.

                        J U D G M E N T

The case of the petitioner is that the respondents are

proceeding with the coercive steps, invoking the provisions under

the Revenue Recovery Act, without actually fixing the liability and

even without issuing any notice in this regard to the petitioner.

2. The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent says

that the second respondent is not the competent authority for

considering the representation submitted by the petitioner and that,

if the petitioner has any grievance, he has to approach the

requisitioning authority, making clear that the said respondent has

moved the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act only on the

basis of such requisition made by the third respondent.

3. As a matter of fact, nothing is stated from the part of the

third respondent, despite the service of notice and on what basis

the liability has been fixed upon the petitioner is not discernible

from the materials on record, including the notice issued under the

W.P(C) No. 25624 of 2009 -W 2

Revenue Recovery Act. It is well settled that the steps under the

Revenue Recovery Act can be initiated and pursued only after fixing

the liability under the relevant provisions of law.

In the above circumstances, the respondents having failed to

justify the proceedings under Ext. P3, the same is hereby set aside.

However, this will not preclude the third respondent from pursuing

further steps, so as to have the liability fixed up on the petitioner, if

any, after issuing notice and giving an opportunity of being heard in

this regard.

The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. No cost.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE

ab