Sam Thomas vs Deputy Tahasildar (Rr)
2024 Latest Caselaw 9936 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9936 Ker
Judgement Date : 5 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Sam Thomas vs Deputy Tahasildar (Rr) on 5 April, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
        FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 8496 OF 2014
PETITIONER:

            SAM THOMAS,
            AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, PANICKASSERY HOUSE,
            APPOLO ROAD, THAMMANAM P O, KOCHI - 32, EDAPPALLY SOUTH
            VILLGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.JOHNSON ABRAHAM
            SRI.NELSON ABRAHAM


RESPONDENTS:

    1       DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR),
            KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011.
    2       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-30.
    3       DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
            ERNAKULAM, KATHRIKADAVU, KOCHI-682 017.
    4       SREEJITH V P,
            AGED 37 YEARS,
            S/O.LATE V K JAYASANKAR, NO.1,IST STREET,
            PACHIPPAN COLONY, SAHIN, PALLAVARAM VILLAGE,
            CHENNAI-600 043 NOW R/A.LAKSHMI VILASAM,
            KOOTHATTUKULAM, PIN-686 662.
    5       GIREESAKUMAR K
            MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.PARTHASARATHY PROPERTIES PVT,
            LTD, 35/3076A, IST FLOOR, MADMBIL BUILDING,
            THAMMANAM MAIN ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25.
            (R5 IS DELETED AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER
            ORDER DATED 12/08/2014 IN IA 10146/2014)
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU)
            SRI.BINOY DAVIS, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 8496 OF 2014
                                 2

                           JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging the Revenue

Recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner to recover

amounts due under Ext.P2 order of the Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. The brief facts necessary for an

adjudication of the dispute are as follows:-

One Fr.Geevarghese executed a registered power of attorney

in favour of the petitioner to manage his property having an

extent of 43.340 cents in Re.Sy.No.449/3 of Kureekad Village. On

the strength of the aforesaid power of attorney, the petitioner

entered into an agreement for joint development of the property

with the 5th respondent (subsequently deleted from the array of

parties). The 4th respondent filed C.C.No.65 of 2011 before the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, which was

disposed of by Ext.P2 order dated 31.01.2012. The complaint of

the 4th respondent was that after obtaining substantial amounts

from the 4th respondent for allotment of an apartment in the

building to be constructed on the property belonging to

Fr.Geevarghese, the apartment was not handed over to the 4 th WP(C) NO. 8496 OF 2014

respondent. The 1st opposite party in the complaint was the

builder (the 5th respondent).

2. On a consideration of the matter, the Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam disposed of the complaint

directing as follows:-

1.The 1st opposite party shall refund Rs.8,73,019/- as per Ext.A3 dated 24.07.2008 and Ext.A8 dated 21.08.2008 together with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of each receipts till realization on to the complainant.

2.The 1st opposite party shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

3. The petitioner, who was the 3rd opposite party before

the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam has now

been proceeded against for recovering the amounts directed to be

paid to the 4th respondent in terms of Ext.P2 order.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner became party to the proceedings only on account of his

status as the power of attorney holder of Fr.Geevarghese. It is

submitted that Fr.Geevarghese himself was removed from the

array of parties as per order on I.A.No.204/11 dated 02.04.2011 in

C.C.No.65 of 2011. It is submitted that even under Ext.P2 order, WP(C) NO. 8496 OF 2014

no liability has been mulcted on the petitioner and therefore the

Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated against him are not

sustainable in law.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent

attempted to justify the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated

against the petitioner stating that the petitioner was equally liable

with the 5th respondent (1st opposite party in C.C.No.65 of 2011) to

pay the amounts due under the orders of the Consumer Forum.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent, I am of

the view that in the light of the directions contained in Ext.P2

order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, it

is clear that no liability whatsoever has been imposed on the

petitioner, who was the 3rd opposite party in C.C.No.65 of 2011.

The liability to pay the amounts to the 4 th respondent is entirely

on the 5th respondent (1st opposite party in C.C.No.65 of 2011). In

that view of the matter, no recovery proceedings can be initiated

against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts payable in

terms of Ext.P2 order.

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P4 and P5 will WP(C) NO. 8496 OF 2014

stand quashed. It is declared that no recovery proceedings shall

be initiated against the petitioner for recovery of any amounts

found payable to the 4th respondent in terms of Ext.P2 order.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK WP(C) NO. 8496 OF 2014

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8496/2014

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY NO 84/IV/2007 S R O, MULANTHURUTHY EXECUTED BY FR.GEE VARGHESE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN C. C. NO 65/2011 DTD 31/1/2012 OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAID EXECUTION APPLICATION, E. A. NO.112/2012 IN C.C. NO.65/2011 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COUSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND NOTICE DTD 1/3/2014 ISSUED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE IST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ATTACHMENT CUM DEMAND NOTICE DTD 1/3/2014 ISSUED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE IST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT R4(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTED 16.11.2013 SENT BY THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL FORUM TO REVENUE AUTHORITIES EXHIBIT R4(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.01.2014 SENT BY THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL FORUM TO REVENUE AUTHORITIES EXHIBIT R4(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE O.S.NO.323/2013 EXHIBIT R4(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 14.08.2008