K.S. JOSEPH Vs. DEPUTYTAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent.

(2.) PETITIONER was a defaulter to the third respondent. To recover the dues, proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act were initiated and Ext.P1 notices under Sections 7 and 34 were issued on 14.06.2010. At that stage, a scheme for One Time Settlement was prevailing in the third respondent establishment and the petitioner had already made an application dated 01.04.2011 for settling the liability under the said scheme. His request was accepted by the third respondent and by Ext.P3, he was asked to remit the amount due along with revenue recovery collection charges. The petitioner remitted the amount due to the third respondent and the third respondent accordingly issued Ext.P3 communication dated 23.08.2011 informing the petitioner that they have no objection in releasing the documents mortgaged by him subject to the production of a NOC from the Revenue Recovery authorities. After the issuance of Ext.P3, Ext.P4 notice under Section 36 of the Revenue Recovery Act for sale of the property mentioned in Ext.P1 notices were issued on 29.08.2011. On the ground that he had settled the liability under the One Time Settlement Scheme, the petitioner sought waiver of the collection charges. That request was not allowed and therefore, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) HOWEVER , the learned Government Pleader, who has obtained instructions in the matter states that the KFC intimated the District Collector about the settlement only by their letter dated 22.10.2011 and that even prior to the receipt of the letter, Ext.P4 notice under Section 36 was issued. Therefore, he says that the petitioner is liable to pay collection charges of 1% on the liability and for the recovery of which, Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated.