High Court Kerala High Court

Smt.R.Indira vs The Special Tahsildar (R.R) on 7 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Smt.R.Indira vs The Special Tahsildar (R.R) on 7 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19246 of 2008(N)


1. SMT.R.INDIRA, D/O.RADHAMMA, AGED 45
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (R.R),
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SMT.ANNAMMA ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KSFE, LTD

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :07/07/2008

 O R D E R
                          ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                        ===============
                      W.P.(C) NO. 19246 OF 2008 N
                     ====================

                  Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008

                             J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is a defaulter to the respondent. When recovery

proceedings were initiated, petitioner moved the Government and by

Ext.P5 order, she was permitted to pay the amount due in 30 equal

monthly instalments. Ext.P5 order contains a default clause enabling the

respondent to proceed with the recovery proceedings in the event of non

compliance with the terms of the said order. Admittedly, default was

committed and thereupon recovery proceedings were again initiated and

that resulted in Ext.P6. In terms of Ext.P6, the property offered as

security is proposed to be sold on 19th of July 2008. It is at that stage, this

writ petition is filed, where the petitioner again prays that she may be

granted the benefit of instalments, which was granted by the Government

in Ext.P5.

2. I do not see any merit in this prayer now made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, when default was committed, at

her request Government granted facility of instalment by Ext.P5 so that

the petitioner could avoid coercive action against the property. Again

WPC 19246/08
:2 :

default was committed and in terms of the enabling provisions of Ext.P5

order itself recovery proceedings were continued and that led to the sale

now scheduled to 19th of this month. Since it was only on account of her

default that the sale has been scheduled, I see no justification in the

prayers made by the petitioner in this writ petition.

3. However, having regard to the fact that petitioner says that

she wants to avoid the sale and liquidate the liability, I direct that if

petitioner makes a payment of 50% of the amount due before 19/7/08,

the sale now scheduled as per Ext.P6 will be deferred. It is directed that

the balance amount shall be paid by the petitioner within 4 weeks

thereafter. It is clarified that in case payment is not made as above, the

respondent will be free to continue the proceedings.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp