MARIYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P4 revenue recovery proceedings initiated under sections 34 and 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Brief Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows;

(2.) Petitioner is a retired employee of the Local Self Government Department. Grievance of the petitioner is that, on the request of the 4 th respondent Panchayat, 3rd respondent has issued demand notice against the petitioner to recover an amount of Rs.1,29,878/- under section 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. During the period 1999-2000, 2004 and 2006 - 2007, petitioner was working as Village Extension Officer and Implementation Officer in the office of the 4th respondent. During 1999-2000 a pilot project for 'Janakeeya Paarppida Padhathi' was implemented all over the Panchayat. As per the project, 50 beneficiaries were selected through Gramasabha and accordingly a list was published. Petitioner was the Implementation Officer of the above said project. On 1.7.2000, the Panchayat Committee took a decision and drawn up a seniority list of beneficiaries for the said project. In the decision, the Committee included the name of one Joseph Augustine, Sreevilasm, Puthen Veedu, Koduvila as the beneficiary of ward No.10, but the above said person was not included in the list of Gramasabha. Petitioner informed the difficulty to include the name of the above said person to the Committee. At that time, the Committee informed the petitioner that, it is a printing mistake and the Committee discussed the issue and took a decision to include the name of the said person in the list and hence issued a copy of decision to the petitioner also. It was learned that, the child of Joseph Augustine, is physically disabled and he had no residence of his own. When the petitioner informed his difficulty, 4th respondent Panchayat Committee has given a copy of decision taken on 1.7.2000 by including the name of the aforesaid person as a beneficiary, evident from Ext.P1. As per the above decision, Rs.31,500/- was given to the said person for construction of residential building.

(3.) While so, during the audit of 1999-2000 conducted by the Local Fund Audit Department, objection was raised against the amount given to Joseph Augustine stating that by mistake his name was included in the beneficiary list. Thereupon, petitioner has brought the said issue to the notice of the Panchayat Committee and they informed the petitioner that it was only the objection made by the auditors by mistake and they will take necessary steps to rectify the same.