P.K.Sarojini vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 10033 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

         MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 27TH BHADRA, 1945

                            RP NO. 638 OF 2023

   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 2413/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER/S:

             P.K.SAROJINI,AGED 73 YEARS,WIFE OF CHAKRAPANI, VEZHAMPILLI
             NIRAPPEL, PULICKAMALY P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682314

             BY ADVS.
             V.RENJU
             NIKHEL K GOPINATH
             K.JAGADEESH

RESPONDENT/S:

     1       STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
             DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM/, PIN
             - 695001

     2       MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
             MULANTHURUTHY P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS
             SECRETARY, PIN - 682314

     3       DEPUTY TAHSILDAR I
             KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 682031

             BY ADVS.
             Martin Jose P
             P.PRIJITH(K/233/2005)
             THOMAS P.KURUVILLA(K/420-B/2005)
             R.GITHESH(K/630/2002)
             AJAY BEN JOSE(K/729/2012)
             MANJUNATH MENON(K/000474/2015)
             SACHIN JACOB AMBAT(K/734/2016)
             ANNA LINDA EDEN(K/1201/2020)
             HARIKRISHNAN S.(K/497/2019)


             Smt Pushpalatha M.K, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-R1 AND R3



     THIS     REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
18.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                      2
RP No. 638 of 2023



                              C.S DIAS,J.
                           ---------------------------
                          RP No. 638 of 2023
                          -----------------------------
               Dated this the 18th day of September, 2023

                                  ORDER

The review petition is filed to clarify that the review

petitioner has deposited the entire amount payable by her

to the second respondent/panchayat and consequently the

third respondent may be directed not to enforce Exts P4

and P5 demand notices.

2. The petitioner has averred in the review

petition that, she had filed the writ petition to quash Ext

P3 notice issued by the second respondent and the

consequential revenue recovery proceedings initiated

against her by the third respondent. The petitioner's case

in the writ petition was that, she was receiving social

RP No. 638 of 2023

security pension from the second respondent. On the

death of her husband on 28.10.2019, she also started to

receive family pension. Then, the second respondent

issued Ext P3 letter to her, directing her to refund the

social security pension received by her, subsequent to the

date of death of her husband because she became

ineligible to receive the said pension with effect from

1.7.2013. After the initiation of the revenue recovery

proceedings, the petitioner has remitted the entire

amount due to the second respondent. Yet, the

respondents 1 and 3 are continuing with the revenue

recovery proceedings. Hence, it may be clarified that

the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as

demanded in Exts P3 to P5.

RP No. 638 of 2023

3. Heard: Smt.V.Renju, the learned counsel

appearing for the review petitioner, the learned

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and

3 and Sri.Martin Jose, the learned counsel appearing for

the second respondent.

4. Sri.Martin Jose, on instructions, submitted that,

subsequent to the filing of the review petition, the second

respondent has already communicated to the third

respondent that, the petitioner has remitted the entire

amount due to the second respondent. Therefore, the

revenue recovery proceedings, pursuant to Exts P4 and

P5, can be dropped and the review petition may be

allowed.

5. Having considered the pleadings and materials

on record and taking note of the submissions made

RP No. 638 of 2023

across the Bar, particularly the admitted fact that the

petitioner has remitted the entire dues payable to the

second respondent, I am of the view that the third

respondent is to be directed not to proceed with the

revenue recovery proceedings initiated as against the

petitioner pursuant to Exts P4 and P5.

In the result, the review petition is allowed as

follows:

The third respondent is directed not to proceed

with revenue recovery proceedings pursuant to

Exts P4 and P5 demand notices, which shall be

treated as closed.

SD/-

sks/18.9.2023                          C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

RP No. 638 of 2023



                       APPENDIX OF RP 638/2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A.1           TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY

THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 4-2-2023

Annexure, A.2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, MULANTHURUTHY DATED 31-3-2023

Annexure.A.3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER MULANTHURUTHY DATED 1-4-2023