J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge the revenue recovery proceedings taken against him pursuant to Ext.P2, on the basis of a communication from the 1^st respondent to the petitioner dated 16.02.2023, produced as Ext.P1.

2. Heard Sri.Jeevan Mathew Manayani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Justine Jacob, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Kerala Water Authority.

3. A perusal of Ext.P1 would show that the petitioner was in arrears of water charges to the respondent Authority for the amount shown thereunder. At the same time, the demand notice at Ext.P2 would show that the arrear was with reference to the period August, 2008. In this connection, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 , provides for realisation of such arrears within a period of three years and insofar as Ext.P2 has been issued only during March, 2023, I am of the opinion that the realisation could not be effected from the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 revenue recovery