IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22415 of 2008(R)
1. PHILIP MATHEW, KOYIPPURATHU HOUSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT'
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
3. MANAGING DIRECTOR
For Petitioner :SRI.P.ABRAHAM CHERIAN
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) 22415 of 2008
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated: AUGUST 13, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner’s grievance is regarding the delay on
the part of the 1st respondent in initiating and continuing
revenue recovery proceedings against the 3rd respondent.
2. Petitioner submits that he was the claimant in
MVOP 28/1997 before the MACT, Pala, in which Ext.P1
award was passed directing the 3rd respondent to pay
compensation. According to the petitioner, as he was
aggrieved by Ext.P1 award, he filed an appeal as MACA
1343/2004 before this Court, in which the compensation
was enhanced by Ext.P2 judgment. Despite the finality that
the award has attained, compensation was not paid and
therefore the petitioner sought for recovery of the amount
due to him by taking recourse of revenue recovery
proceedings. It is stated that though a requisition in this
behalf was made, recovery proceedings was not initiated or
continued and on account of the delay in this matter, this
WP(C) 22415/08 2
petition is filed praying for expediting recovery.
3. The case was adjourned with a direction to the
Government Pleader to obtain instructions in the matter.
Today, on instructions, the learned Government Pleader
submits that recovery proceedings have already been
initiated, and that notice under secs.7 and 34 of the
Revenue Recovery Act has been served on the defaulter on
4.8.2008 and that further action in pursuance thereof will
be continued. From the submission made by the learned
Government Pleader, it is therefore evident that they have
initiated proceedings and are earnestly continuing the
proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. If that be
so, the grievance of the petitioner is unfounded.
4. Be that as it may, it is directed that the 1st
respondent shall continue the revenue recovery
proceedings and take it to its logical conclusion, without
any delay in this matter.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
mt/-