Geetha Kumari v. District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/22ND PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8068 of 2015 (G) --------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- GEETHA KUMARI, W/O.LATE GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS, JYOTHIS, KUZHIMUKKU, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S):

--------------------------

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005.

2. TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 8068 of 2015 (G) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------- EXT.P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/01/2009 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 333/2009.

EXT.P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G9-4248/2009 DATED 09/04/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/11/2014 IN WPC.NO. 14668/2012.

EXT.P4:

TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE NO. 4248/2009 DATED 24/02/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

=========================================== W.P.(C). No. 8068 of 2015 ===================================================== Dated this the 13th day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who has challenged the revenue recovery action initiated by the respondents, had approached this Court on an earlier occasion seeking similar reliefs. On that occasion, by Ext.P3 judgment, this Court, while finding against the petitioner on the issue of whether, the fact that the petitioner had undergone a default sentence, would insulate him from proceedings for realisation of compensation order under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C, also granted the petitioner four equal monthly installments to discharge the liability. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not comply with the directions in the said judgment with regard to the payment of amounts in installments. In that view of the matter, I find that the present writ petition, which seeks almost identical reliefs, cannot be maintained at the instance of the petitioner. The writ petition accordingly fails, and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das