G.T. Sreekumar vs Authorized Officer, Kerala State ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 13244 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 13244 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 May, 2024

Kerala High Court

G.T. Sreekumar vs Authorized Officer, Kerala State ... on 23 May, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
        THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 19341 OF 2014
PETITIONER/S:

            G.T. SREEKUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS
            S/O LATE GOVINDA PILLA, THATTAMVILAKOM,
            NANNIYODE, PACHA PO, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
            BY ADV SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR


RESPONDENT/S:

    1       AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD
            REVENUE RECOVERY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
             NEDUMANGAD BRANCH OFFICE, REVENUE TOWER, NEDUMANGAD,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
    2       THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
            KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, NEDUMANGAD BRANCH OFFICE,
            REVENUE TOWER, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
            001.
    3       THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER
            KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, NEDUMANGAD BRANCH OFFICE,
            REVENUE TOWER, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
    4       KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD
            REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIARMAN, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.GEORGE BOBAN, SC, K.S.H.B.
            SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY




            SMT. THUSHARA JAMES (SR GP)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 19341 OF 2014                      2




                                     JUDGMENT

Petitioner's father late Govinda Pillai availed a housing

loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the Kerala State Housing Board.

Late Govinda Pillai passed away on 02.11.2003. When

revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the

petitioner (as the legal heir of late Govinda Pillai), the

petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P(C)

No.31175 of 2010, which was disposed of by Ext.P1

judgment holding as follows:-

''7.Under the above mentioned circumstances, I do not find any reason to hold that the revenue recovery steps now initiated is unsustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner place reliance on various decisions of this Court to content that the revenue recovery steps could not be proceeded without conducting proper adjudication and fixation of the liability. I take notice that dictum laid in those cases pertains to recovery of unliquidated amounts, with respect to which there exist genuine disputes. In the case of recovery of the loan amount in question, it could not be said that the amount sought to be recovered is not discernible or the defaulted amount could not be termed as an unliquidated liability. Therefore on the factual matrix itself, I am not convinced that the recovery steps need be restrained based on the contention that no proper adjudication was done.

8. However, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents points out that a scheme formulated by the Government for 'one time settlement' of the loans availed from the respondent Board is in force till 30.6.2011. Under such circumstances, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondents seeking 'one time settlement' of the arrears.

If any such approach is made, the respondents shall make

computation of the amounts due, after giving credit to all payments made by the deceased father on respective due dates, and shall finalise the account. Intimation regarding the balance amount to be paid under the 'one time settlement scheme' shall be issued to the petitioner at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from today. It is left open to the petitioner to remit the amount due under the 'one time settlement scheme' before the dates stipulated.

9. In order to facilitate the petitioner to clear payments of the arrears through the one time settlement scheme, steps of recovery now being pursued shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 4 (four) months from today.''

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents

would submit that even after Ext.P1 judgment no amounts

were remitted by the petitioner and accordingly, the

revenue recovery proceedings were continued against the

petitioner. It is also clear from Ext.P2 that One Time

Settlement was offered to the petitioner whereby the

petitioner was permitted to close the loan account by

paying Rs.7,28,933 /- as against the total amount due of

Rs.11,26,613/- as on 30.06.2014.

3. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides

and having perused the records, it is clear that the

petitioner has not complied with the terms of Ext.P1

judgment and has not availed the opportunity to clear the

liability by way of One Time Settlement. Since this Court

has already held in Ext.P1 that there is no reason to hold

that the revenue recovery proceedings are unsustainable, I

find no reason to grant any of the reliefs sought for in the

writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly,

dismissed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 03.02.2011

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BOARD EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 09.06.2014 AFFIXED BY THE RESPONDENT BOARD EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.07.2014 GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 19.07.2014 GIVEN BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER