V. Babu vs Athiyannoor Block Panchayath
2023 Latest Caselaw 1005 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 27TH POUSHA, 1944
                      RP NO. 101 OF 2022
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10202/2010 OF HIGH COURT OF
                            KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER:

          V. BABU
          AGED 62 YEARS
          THENGUVILA VEEDU, NELLIMMOODU P.O.,
          NEYYATTINKARA.
          BY ADVS.
          B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
          ANITHA RAVINDRAN
          HARISANKAR N UNNI
          SARANGADHARAN P.
          NAVVYA UNNI


RESPONDENTS:

    1     ATHIYANNOOR BLOCK PANCHAYATH
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          ATHIYANNOOR BLOCK, PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
          ARALUMMOODU P.O., NEYYATTINKARA - 695 123.
    2     THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
          REVENUE RECOVERY, NEYYATTINKARA - 695 123.

          SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
          SRI.JOSHY THANNIKKAMATTOM - GP
     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 101 OF 2022                2

                               ORDER

This petition, seeking review of the judgment of this Court

dated 03.10.2018, has been impelled on the ground that, though

there was a prayer seeking that Exts.P12 to P14(a) be set aside, it

was omitted to be brought to the notice of this Court, while it was

delivered.

2. Sri.Harisankar N.Unni - learned counsel for the petitioner,

pointed out that Exts.P12 to P14(a) suffer from various defects,

including that they have been issued on the same day; and further

that the requisition made by the 1st respondent - Panchayat was

without even hearing his client. He argued that since his client had

offered to complete the work on the same cost, the Panchayat did

not accede to it, but entrusted the work to someone else for a higher

cost. He also argued that this action is contrary to the various orders

of the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions.

3. Sri.K.B.Pradeep - learned counsel appearing for the

Panchayat, however, submitted that the afore arguments of the

petitioner are only an afterthought and that the Panchayat had no

other option, but to entrust the work to another person, consequent

to which it has now been completed. He, however, conceded that if

this Court is only inclined to direct the Panchayat to consider the

petitioner's contentions and then decide whether the requisition for

Revenue Recovery should be pressed, he would not stand in the way

of such orders being issued; however, praying that no affirmative

declarations be made in his favour.

4. The learned Government Pleader - Sri.Joshy

Thannikkamattom, appearing for the official respondent, submitted

that Exts.P12 to P14(a) have been issued based on the requisition

made by the Panchayat; and that they are willing to abide by any

directions to be issued by this Court.

5. When I consider and evaluate the afore submissions, it is

clear that, on one hand, the petitioner takes the stand that no

Revenue Recovery could have been even requisitioned against him

by the Panchayat; while the latter takes a contrary view. Obviously,

this is disputation on facts, which will have to be first resolved,

before any action based on their requisition can be taken forward.

6. However, taking note of the question of limitation that may

arise, I deem it appropriate not to set aside the requisition made by

the Panchayat, but only Exts.P12 to P14(a), since, if the Panchayat is

to find that no such is necessary, it would become redundant; and,

on the contrary, if the Panchayat is to hold otherwise, then fresh

notices can be issued in terms of law, particularly when the

petitioner says that all of them were issued on the same day.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this review petition to the

limited extent below:

(a) I direct the Panchayat to hear the petitioner and take a

decision as to whether the requisition made by them for Revenue

Recovery earlier should be continued or otherwise. A decision in this

regard shall be taken not later than three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

(b) Axiomatically, Exts.P12 to P14(a) will stand set aside;

however, making it clear that if the Panchayat is to take a view in

favour of the requisition, then the competent Authorities will be at

full liberty to initiate Revenue Recovery based on fresh notices to be

issued; and I record that petitioner has not opposed this liberty.

Needless to say, I have not dealt with the rights of the parties

in any manner in this order and that all of them are left open, if it is

required to be impelled in future.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/17.1