AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext. P1 and all further proceedings pursuant to the same as illegal and baseless.
A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent not to proceed against the petitioner until the amounts due from the
petitioner is quantified as per proceedings in O.A. No. 330/11 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
The subject issue relates to Ext. P1 notice dated 16.11.2012 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Mannarkkad, Palakkad District,
1st respondent, under Section 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 dealing with demand to be served prior to the attachment of land.Â
Apparently, the petitioner has submitted Ext. P7 objection to the notice in detail, and contended that the quantification of the
amount for recovery is not correct, and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount which are not due from the petitioner.
Anyhow, this matter was pending before this Court from the year 2013. It is true, the stay of further proceedings pertaining to Ext. P1 was granted
to the petitioner on 19.02.2013 and the same was extended until further orders on 27.03.2013. However, the subject issue has to attain finality.
The paramount contention advanced by the petitioner is that the proceedings initiated by the State Bank of India, Kanjirampuzha Branch, Palakkad
District, 2nd respondent, is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Whatever that be, it is a settled position that a proceeding under the Act, 1968
is not prevented, merely because a proceeding is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at the instance of the Bank.
Now, it is only appropriate that the writ petition is disposed of directing the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Mannarkkad, Palakkad, the first
respondent, to finalise the proceedings after taking into consideration Ext. P7 objection submitted by the petitioner.
Therefore, after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Varghese Prem, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. K.P. Harish and
Sri. P. V. Surendranath appearing for the Bank, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to finalise the proceedings pertaining to
Ext. P1 demand notice prior to the attachment, after taking into account Ext. P7 objection submitted by the petitioner at the earliest and at any rate
within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of hearing before finalising the
proceedings. Till the finalisation of the proceedings, the interim order granted by this Court on 19.02.2013 will continue to be in force.