Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. One Mr. Mathew Thomas, the petitioners' vendor, owned an Ambassador Car, which on 04/10/1996 was seized by the authorities from another person, one Mr. Joseph Thomas. The seizure was on the allegation that the vehicle was used for committing an abkari offence. As part of the prosecution, when the authorities seized the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle, Mr. Mathew Thomas, filed an application for interim custody of the vehicle. In fact, on 22/11/1996 the Joint Commissioner of Excise ordered interim custody of the vehicle on the condition of the petitioner executing a personal bond as well as depositing an amount of Rs. 30,000/-. Mr. Mathew Thomas, on fulfilling both the conditions, obtained interim custody of the vehicle. Later, on 10/11/2000, in terms of Section 67B of the Abkari Act, the authorities confiscated the vehicle and directed Mr. Mathew Thomas to surrender it; he has, however, failed to surrender the vehicle.

2. In the wake of the failure of Mr. Mathew Thomas to comply with the directions of the authorities to surrender the vehicle; the said authorities, having forfeited the deposit of Rs. 30,000/-, further initiated revenue recovery proceedings to recover the balance amount of Rs. 32,000/-, for the vehicle had been valued at Rs. 62,000/-. In the interregnum; that is, between the date of the initial seizure and the final confiscation, on 23/12/1998, the petitioners purchased a piece of immovable property from Mr. Mathew Thomas, the owner of the vehicle. Evidently, the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated through Ext. P3 dated 31/08/2006.

3. In the course of time, the petitioners, being the purchasers of the property, decided to obtain a loan on the strength of the said property. At that juncture, they are said to have come to know, for the first time, about the revenue recovery proceedings. In that context, the petitioners had realised that the revenue recovery proceedings were a hurdle to their beneficial enjoyment of the property-say for raising a loan. Ostensibly, left with no other option, the petitioners wanted to take advantage of the Amnesty Scheme offered by the department to the abkari defaulters.

4. Accordingly, the first petitioner submitted Ext. R5(a) application before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise expressing his readiness to pay the amount due from Mr. Mathew Thomas, his vendor, provided he be extended the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. As the record reveals, the said authority, however, rejected the first petitioner's offer on the premise that the Amnesty Scheme would not extend to the amounts realisable on account of the failure of the owner to produce the confiscated vehicle: It is, in other words, not an abkari due.

5. Under these circumstances, the petitioners filed the present writ petition, inter alia, questioning Ext. P3 and also seeking a direction to the fourth respondent, the Village Officer, Vazhappally, to issue a possession certificate and site map without any remarks thereon regarding the revenue recovery proceedings. The petitioners have also sought an additional direction to the respondents not to recover the balance market value of the confiscated vehicle either from the petitioners in person or through the sale of their property.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the amount due from the petitioners' vendor cannot be called an abkari due in terms of either Section 3 of the Revenue Recovery Act or Section 28 of the Abkari Act. He has, however, to his credit, submitted that it can be treated, if at all, as revenue due to the Government under Section 68 of the Revenue Recovery Act.

7. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel has contended that the authorities initiated the recovery process by issuing Ext. P3 notice on 31/08/2006 under the Revenue Recovery Act. But, much prior to that; i.e. on 23/12/1998 the petitioners purchased the property. Even in terms of Section 3 of the Revenue Recovery Act, the sta