A.G. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the Convenor of a beneficiary committee for the development of Elangoil 4th Mile road in Ward No. 12 of Chirakadavu Panchayat, Kottayam District under 'Janakeeyasoothranam', to quash Ext. P10 revenue recovery notice dated 10.08.2009, issued under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, on the basis of a requisition dated 24.06.2009, mainly on the ground that the recovery is barred as per Sec. 243 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Basic material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) The 2nd respondent advanced an amount of Rs. 39,000/- towards mobilization advance for the construction of the above specified road and as the convenor of the committee, petitioner brought gravel worth Rs. 86,135/-. The case of the petitioner is that, the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Kottayam District Panchayat was reluctant to sanction and pay the required amounts for carrying out the next stage of the above work. Due to non-sanctioning of the amounts in time, the work could not be completed. During the period between unloading of the gravel and entering the same in M-Book, the 4th respondent, i.e., the Deputy Tahsildar, Kanjirappally Taluk, Kottayam has issued Ext. P3 revenue recovery notice under Sec. 7 dated 10.07.2002 on the basis of the requisition made on 14.06.2002. Anyhow, nothing in respect of the work has proceeded further, since the 2nd respondent failed to sanction or disburse any amount.

(3.) Anyhow, on 19.12.2002, the Assistant Executive Engineer has forwarded a communication to the Executive Engineer requesting to make a report to the District Collector to stop the revenue recovery steps taken against the convenor, i.e., the petitioner. Thereafter, after four years, the 3rd respondent, i.e., the Secretary of the Kottayam District Panchayat issued Ext. P6 show cause notice dated 05.01.2007, stating that, since the petitioner has not completed the work after receiving the amount, revenue recovery action will be initiated against the petitioner unless sufficient cause are shown for not carrying out the work. Thereafter, petitioner was served with Ext. P10 notice under Sections 34 and 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, dated 10.08.2009. Even though petitioner has preferred petition before the 7th respondent, i.e., the District Collector, Kottayam to drop the proceedings, no action was initiated, and later it was dismissed. Later, even though a revision was filed by the petitioner before the Land Revenue Commissioner, it was disposed of as per Ext. P15, stating that, it is up to the requisitioning authority to properly assess the revenue due to them and that it is not the responsibility of the Revenue Department.