M.V. THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS MOOKANCHERY, FLAT-5C, SKYLINE GATE WAY PATHADIPALAM, ERNAKULAM Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM 682 030,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <FRM>JUDGEMENT_689_LAWS(KER)7_2012.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 order dated 5.6.2012 passed by the first respondent, whereby the plea of 'no means' has been answered against the petitioner and the petitioner has been ordered to be arrested and put in civil prison under Section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner is before this Court by way of third round of litigation. The first two rounds have culminated in Exts.P4 and P7 judgments. As per Ext.P4 judgment, the first respondent was directed to enquire into the 'no means status' of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders. Subsequently, the said verdict was got clarified at the instance of the revenue, by filing I.A.No.19359/2011 which was allowed as per Annexure A1 order dated 8.12.2011, produced along with the statement filed by the first respondent. It was accordingly, that the matter was considered and the first respondent passed Ext.P6 order dated 4/1/2012, challenging which, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.3015/2012. This was disposed of as per Ext.P7 judgment dated 23/02/2012, whereby the impugned order was set aside observing that it did not reflect the reasons, discussing the nature of contentions raised by the petitioner, however, with liberty to pass fresh orders within the time as stipulated therein. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered by the first respondent and Ext.P8 order was passed on 05/06/2012, which is under challenge in this writ petition. The first respondent has filed a statement seeking to sustain the impugned order referring to the nature and extent of liability and the clandestine deals pursued by the petitioner, causing the properties to be sold ignoring the existence of liability to be discharged to the Government under different heads. The reports submitted by the various Tahsildars of various Taluks, where the properties are situated, are also produced as Annexures II to IV respectively. The nature and extent of liabilities, the properties owned by the petitioner, the properties disposed of by the petitioner and such other relevant particulars are stated as given in the statement and the reports. However, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the factual particulars, more so, since the petitioner is having an effective alternate remedy, if aggrieved of Ext.P8, by preferring a revision before the Commissioner for Land Revenue under Section 83(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act.