JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P6 notices of demand under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, demanding an amount of Rs.4,31,555/- with interest and collection charges from the petitioners, and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioners are the legal heirs of late A.V. Rajagopalan, a retired Sub Registrar from the Registration Department on 31.03.2001. Sri. Rajagopalan expired on 13.09.2005. After 9 years of his retirement and 5 years of his death, Ext.P3 notice demanding Rs.12,555/- plus other charges was served on the 1st petitioner and threatened her that if the amount is not remitted within 10 days, her family pension would be stopped. Accordingly, 1st petitioner remitted the said amount on 30.12.2010. On 28.02.2015, Ext.P6 notice addressed to the petitioners was received, asking them to remit an amount of Rs.4,31,555/- along with interest and other charges. Contention of the petitioners is that, petitioners are not aware of any such proceedings pending against late Rajagopalan, and they were not issued with any notice prior to the issuance of Ext.P6. Petitioners are in dark about the reasons for issue of such a demand. However, petitioners could understand that Ext.P6 demand was issued as required by the 2nd respondent. Other contentions are raised by the petitioners in order to establish ignorance about Ext.P6 demand, which has even gone to the extent of stating that petitioners have no manner of liability against the State Government, in order to seek recovery under Ext.P6. It is thus seeking reliefs, this writ petition is filed by the petitioners. 3. Fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that it was on the basis of the requisition made by the District Registrar (General), Kollam, vide letter dated 17.12.2014, and also Revenue Recovery Certificate issued by the District Collector, Kollam dated 09.01.2015, Ext.P6 demand notices under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act were issued to the petitioners. 4. 3. Fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that it was on the basis of the requisition made by the District Registrar (General), Kollam, vide letter dated 17.12.2014, and also Revenue Recovery Certificate issued by the District Collector, Kollam dated 09.01.2015, Ext.P6 demand notices under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act were issued to the petitioners. 4. Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, among other contentions, it is stated that, after the retirement of Rajagopalan on 31.03.2001, while pursuing action to release his pensionary benefits, Non Liability Certificates were invited from the offices where he worked, and as per the liability certificates so received, at the time of retirement, late Rajagopalan was under Local Audit Liability of a huge amount which incurred in course of his duty as public servant in different Districts viz., Kollam, Ernakulam and Palakkad. From the liability certificates received, liability was provisionally calculated and fixed at Rs.5,15,885/-. It is also reported by the Palakkad and Ernakulam District Registrars that for the items inviting liability, late Rajagopalan had not offered any explanations or reply. Hence, his pensionary benefits except DCRG had been released and the DCRG was withheld in view of his liability towards Government. The DCRG could not be settled for a period of three years or more, as he was negligent and reluctant to answer his liabilities. Later, Sri. Rajagopalan filed W.P.(C) No.19930 of 2004 before this Court seeking release of DCRG and on 13.10.2004, as per Ext.P2 judgment, the DCRG was directed to be released to Rajagopalan, ignoring the liability for the purpose of disbursement of pensionary benefits due to the lapse of time prescribed under law. 5. It is also contended that the lapse of time in placing liability as per Part-III, Rule 3, Note 3 of Kerala Service Rules was attributed by the incumbent himself by declining to provide timely explanations or reply in audit remarks. However, in compliance with the directives contained in Ext.P2 judgment of this Court, and further instructions from Government and Inspector General of Registration, vide order dated 28.02.2005, the District Registrar (General), Kollam ignored the liability for the disbursement of DCRG and issued a non-liability certificate to Sub Treasury, Karunagappally. The ignorance of liability as directed and conceived was only for the purpose of disbursement of DCRG and was not for relieving the incumbent from the whole liability of audit items. The ignorance of liability as directed and conceived was only for the purpose of disbursement of DCRG and was not for relieving the incumbent from the whole liability of audit items. The Non- liability certificate was issued only to comply with the procedural requisites to release DCRG as per the directives of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. 6. It is also stated, in order to fix the final liability, on 30.07.2004, a letter has been sent to late Rajagopalan, for which he answered negatively, citing the judgment in Ext.P2. On 30.11.2004, the final liability was fixed at Rs.4,31,555/- in all the Districts together, after giving the incumbent an opportunity to appear in an Adalath conducted in the office of the Inspector General of Registration on 29.11.2004 and the final liability certificate was sent to late Rajagopalan. The DCRG was released on 30.03.2005, amounting to Rs.1,42,560/-, which was in compliance to Ext.P2 judgment. 7. According to the 2nd respondent, since huge amount is due from late Rajagopalan, even though as per Ext.P2 judgment, the DCRG was directed to be released, the liability against late Rajagopalan still subsists and therefore, the respondents are entitled to seek revenue recovery proceedings against the legal heirs who have succeeded to the estate of late Rajagopalan, and recover the same. Therefore, according to the 2nd respondent, there is no manner of illegality in initiating Ext.P6 revenue recovery proceedings. 8. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and also contending that the liability against late Rajagopalan was quantified only on 30.11.2004 i.e. after a period of 3 years and 8 months of his retirement. Therefore, as per the provisions of Part-III, Rule 3, Note 3, the recovery against late Rajagopalan has lapsed since a specific 3 year period is provided under Note 3. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that no amount can be recovered from the petitioners, especially due to the fact that there is an interdiction created in Ext.P2 judgment rendered by this Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 10. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 10. The predominant contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in view of the findings contained under Ext.P2 judgment, the recovery launched against the petitioners as per Ext.P6 cannot be sustained. On going through Ext.P2 judgment, what I could gather is that the recovery against the DCRG of late Rajagopalan became stale due to the fact that there is a period of 3 years created under Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part-III K.S.R to recover any amount from the DCRG from the date of fixation of the final liability against the incumbent in office. 11. On a reading of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is clear, the liability was fixed against late Rajagopalan on 30.11.2004 i.e. after a period of 3 years and 8 months from the retirement of late Rajagopalan on 31.03.2001. Therefore, admittedly, the recovery sought against the DCRG was bad. It was thereupon that, in Ext.P2 judgment, this Court directed the respondents to release the DCRG to late Rajagopalan. In compliance with the said judgment, DCRG was released to late Rajagopalan. Now the question is whether any manner of prohibition is created under Ext.P2 judgment from recovering the amount due from the petitioners who are legal heirs of late Rajagopalan. In my considered opinion, in Ext.P2 judgment, this Court was considering only the question whether any amount could be recovered from the DCRG of late Rajagopalan, in view of the limitation created under Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part-III K.S.R. No other questions were considered there. So far as the liability of legal heirs vis-a-vis the liability created by late Rajagopalan is concerned, the same is guided by the general law of the land viz., Sec.50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which read thus: "50. Legal representative.--(1) Where a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representative of the deceased. Legal representative.--(1) Where a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representative of the deceased. (2) Where the decree is executed against such legal representative, he shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been duly disposed of; and, for the purpose of ascertaining such liability, the Court executing the decree may, of its own motion or on the application of the decree-holder, compel such legal representative to produce such accounts as it thinks fit." 12. Therefore, if the petitioners have acquired any property of late Rajagopalan, to the said extent, the petitioners are liable. Tenor and terms of Article 112 of the Schedule in the Limitation Act, 1963 establishes that, Government is entitled to proceed against the legal heirs of late Rajagopalan within thirty years since dues are outstanding to the Government. Therefore, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that the liability if any outstanding against late Rajagopalan is bad under law, cannot be sustained. However, I find from the totality of the circumstances, the legal heirs seems to be not aware of any proceedings pending against Rajagopalan and they were not served with any prior notices preceding Ext.P6 revenue recovery action and therefore, it is only appropriate that principles of natural justice demands, reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to understand the proceedings against late Rajagopalan and contest the same. 13. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P6 proceedings can be directed to be kept in abeyance for a limited period and provide an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the proceedings in respect of liability fixed against late Rajagopalan. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent Ext.P6 revenue recovery proceedings initiated under sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, is directed to be kept in abeyance for a period of three months. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent Ext.P6 revenue recovery proceedings initiated under sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, is directed to be kept in abeyance for a period of three months. The 2nd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioners along with the documents relating to the liability fixed against late Rajagopalan and the orders thereto, and fix a date for their appearance, provide reasonable time to file any objection to the same, and attain finality to the whole proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.