[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
P.A.Jihas vs The District Collector on 23 February, 2026
2026:KER:16267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WA NO. 137 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN WP(C) NO.30301 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 P.A.JIHAS, AGED 55 YEARS
S/O LATE P. K. ABDUL RAHIMAN, MANAGING
DIRECTOR, M/S. JEWEL HOMES PVT. LTD.,
JEWEL NEST, VASUDEVA ROAD, VASAND NAGAR,
EDAPPALLY SOUTH, KANAYANOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682024
2 M/S. JEWEL HOMES PVT. LTD.
JEWEL NEST, VASUDEVA ROAD, VASAND NAGAR,
EDAPPALLY SOUTH, KANAYANOOR, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PIN - 682024
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
O/O DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)
O/O DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
W.A.No.137 of 2026
2026:KER:16267
..2..
3 KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
TRINITY CENTRE, TC NO. 14/4354,
OPP CHAITHANYA EYE HOSPITAL,
KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, PIN - 695004
4 JOHNY GEORGE
S/O T.V. GEORGE, FORMERLY RESIDING AT:
THYSSERY HOUSE, VILLA NO.4, KUDAMALOOR,
KOTTAYAM - 686 017 AND NOW RESIDING AT:
THYSSERRY HOUSE, MANNANAM P.O. ATHIRAMPUZHA,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686561
5 BEENA JOHNY
W/O JOHNY GEORGE, FORMERLY RESIDING AT:
THYSSERY HOUSE, VILLA NO.4, KUDAMALOOR,
KOTTAYAM - 686 017 ,AND NOW RESIDING AT:
THYSSERRY HOUSE, MANNANAM P.O. ATHIRAMPUZHA,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686561
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SHRI.CHETHAN KRISHNA R.
SHRI.NANDAGOPAL S. KURUP, SC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.137 of 2026
2026:KER:16267
..3..
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2026
Soumen Sen, C.J.
The order of attachment/demand notice issued by the
first respondent for realization of the amount payable to the
fifth respondent was the subject matter of challenge in the
writ petition.
2. The first petitioner is the Managing Director of
M/s. Jewel Homes Private Limited. On the basis of a
complaint filed under Sections 31 and 71 of the Real Estate
(Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, at the instance of the
private respondent, the Adjudicating Authority passed an
order on 1.02.2021 directing the appellants to refund a sum
of ₹25,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 14.05% per
annum.
3. The said order was challenged before the Kerala
Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in REFA Nos.20 and 44 of
2021. By order dated 28 October 2022, the Appellate
2026:KER:16267
..4..
Tribunal remanded the matter directing the Adjudicating
Authority to recalculate the compensation and also to
determine the quantum of interest payable by the builder.
Accordingly, by order dated 19 March 2024, the
Adjudicating Authority directed payment of ₹25,00,000/- in
instalments together with interest on the instalment
amounts at the rate of 14.05%.
4. The appellants thereafter preferred an appeal
before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in
REFA No.120 of 2025 along with an application to condone
the delay. The Appellate Tribunal, by order dated
15.01.2026, refused to condone the delay, dismissed
I.A.No.333 of 2025 and consequently, dismissed the appeal.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, a second appeal was
preferred before this Court. By judgment dated 10 February
2026, the learned Single Judge disposed of the appeal with
the following directions:
"7. As regards the claim of the appellants that an
2026:KER:16267
..5..
amount of Rs.12.8 lakhs has been received by the
complainants/respondents and the same has not
been taken into consideration, this Court is of the
view that the appellants have to workout their
remedy by filing an appropriate application before
the Adjudicating Authority, when the order is
being put to execution. Therefore, the appellants
shall be at liberty to raise the said plea through an
appropriate application before the Adjudicating
Authority in the execution, which is stated to be
pending before it.
8. The learned Senior Counsel further submits
that the appellants will be given liberty to claim
reworking of the interest for the amount already
deposited. The appellants will be at liberty to seek
appropriate relief before the Adjudicating
Authority, if permissible under law."
It is contended that the above order was passed without
affording an opportunity of hearing to the fifth respondent.
From a bare reading of paragraph 7 of the judgment, it
appears that the learned Single Judge may not have been
informed that recovery proceedings were pending pursuant
to the order dated 19 March 2024 passed by the
Adjudicating Authority.
6. All that is now being claimed on behalf of the
appellants is an adjustment of the amount already paid. It
is needless to mention that the Recovery Officer is required
2026:KER:16267
..6..
to calculate the amount due in terms of the order passed by
the Adjudicating Authority on 19 march 2024 and there is
no scope for any further adjudication in view of the fact that
the said order has attained finality.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants has
submitted that a sum of ₹12.20 lakhs is admittedly due to
the fifth respondent. In the event, the said amount is
deposited within a period of one week from today, the
demand notice shall remain stayed until the Recovery
Officer determines the actual amount due and payable
under the order dated 19 March 2024 after affording a
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
8. However, there shall be an unconditional stay of
the order of attachment for a period of one week. In the
event the said amount is deposited within the aforesaid
period, the Recovery Officer shall decide the matter in
accordance with law and calculate the amount due and
payable finally based on the order dated 19 March 2024.
2026:KER:16267
..7..
The Recovery Officer shall conclude the proceedings within
a period of eight weeks from today.
9. The first appellant shall not deal with, alienate or
encumber the subject property in any manner whatsoever
until the entire amount adjudicated by the Adjudicating
Authority is paid.
10. It is needless to mention that in the event of
failure to deposit the said amount within one week, the
order of attachment shall stand enforced, especially since
the agreement disclosed by the private respondent does not
show that it was executed by the first appellant in his
capacity as Managing Director of the second appellant
company. Moreover, it is a private limited company in
which the first appellant is having a substantial share.
11. By consent of parties, the writ petition is also
taken up for final disposal and disposed of by this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition and the writ appeal shall
2026:KER:16267
..8..
stand disposed of. The Registrar (Computerisation)-cum-
Director (IT) must ensure that both the matters are shown
as disposed of in terms of this order.
Sd/-
Soumen Sen
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Syam Kumar V.M.
Judge
ds 23.02.2026
