JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext.P10 revenue recovery notices issued under Sections 34 and 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows. 2. Third petitioner is the Managing Partner of petitioner No. 1 Partnership firm and the Managing Director of petitioner No. 2 Construction Company. Third petitioner is a registered owner of Indigo car (Model 2008) bearing registration No. KL-05/S-3032. The 3rd petitioner and the 2nd petitioner company constructed a house for the 3rd respondent and his wife during 1996-98. Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the petitioners, 3rd respondent and his wife filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam, seeking compensation. The District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,36,277-30/-. Aggrieved, petitioners approached the State Forum by preferring an appeal and obtained a stay in that regard. 3. In the meantime, 3rd respondent filed execution petition and consequent to the recovery action initiated by the District Forum, the Indigo car specified above and owned by the 3rd petitioner was seized. The same was done based on a previously issued revenue recovery certificate that was later recalled by the CDRF. Without fixing the upset price for the sale of the car, auction notice was issued on various occasions by the 4th respondent. The 3rd petitioner, challenged the auction notices by filing objections and filing various writ petitions, especially because of the non-fixation of the upset price in the revenue recovery proceedings. According to the petitioners, in spite of the specific directions from this Court from time to time, the 4th respondent attempted to sell the car illegally without fixing the upset value. In the meantime, petitioners in compliance of the orders of this Court, deposited an amount of Rs. 1,36,932/- towards settlement of the liability. 4. However, having lost in the appellate forum, i.e. the State Commission, the matter was taken before the National Commission, but without any success. Thereupon, it has attained finality. According to the petitioners, thereafter demand notice was issued without considering 3rd petitioner's objections and settling the cost of already seized Indigo car and the amount remitted by the petitioners. 4. However, having lost in the appellate forum, i.e. the State Commission, the matter was taken before the National Commission, but without any success. Thereupon, it has attained finality. According to the petitioners, thereafter demand notice was issued without considering 3rd petitioner's objections and settling the cost of already seized Indigo car and the amount remitted by the petitioners. The 3rd petitioner is taking the stand that after realizing the value of the car, there would not be any outstanding dues from the 3rd petitioner. The loss or damage occasioned to the vehicle on account of the lapse of time is squarely the responsibility of the revenue recovery authorities, who have failed to perform their duties in a legal and proper manner. Thereupon, it is contended that the present action as per Ext.P10 series of revenue recovery notices under Sections 34 and 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act cannot be sustained under law. 5. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri. K. Jayakumar, learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. Santhosh Peter and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, Sri. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 6. The question to be decided is whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext.P10 revenue recovery action initiated by the statutory authorities at the behest of the CDRF, Kottayam to execute the order in C.C. No. 1055 of 1998. From the discussion of facts made above, it is clear that so far as the order of the Forum is concerned, it has attained finality. Therefore, the action taken by the 3rd respondent to execute the order of the Forum can never be said to be bad or illegal. The case of the petitioners is that a portion of the amount was deposited before the Forum as per the direction issued by this Court in an earlier round of litigation. It is also true, an Indigo car was attached in the revenue recovery proceedings, which is not yet sold, consequent to the successive litigations before this Court. However, the fact remains, still amounts are due to the 3rd respondent from the petitioners in accordance with the order passed by the District Forum. That being the situation, the 3rd respondent is entitled to recover the amount in accordance with law. However, the fact remains, still amounts are due to the 3rd respondent from the petitioners in accordance with the order passed by the District Forum. That being the situation, the 3rd respondent is entitled to recover the amount in accordance with law. Be that as it may, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the Indigo car was attached, the same will have to be sold first and then only it can be ascertained whether any amount is further due to the 3rd respondent. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that as per Ext.P10, the property of the petitioners are proceeded with, which cannot be sustained under law, in view of the non-conduct of sale of the Indigo car, and without which, the balance amount cannot be ascertained. 7. On the contrary, learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that, so far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, he is entitled as of right to recover the amount as per the order passed by the Forum. Merely because there are some laches or lapses on the part of the recovery authorities to sell off the vehicle by fixing upset price, that will not in any way affect the execution of the order of the District Forum. Learned Government Pleader also submitted that the delay in selling of the vehicle had occurred consequent to the successive litigations pending before the various Forums and this Court. It is true, 3rd petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition, evident from Ext.P1, writ appeal, evident from Ext.P2, again a writ petition, evident from Ext.P3 and writ appeal, again evident from Ext.P5. The matter was taken up by the petitioners up to the National Commission also. Therefore, consequent to the intermittent stay granted by this Court, the car could not be sold, and therefore, there is no laches or delay on the part of the statutory authorities to execute the order by selling off the car, is the contention. 8. Taking note of the respective submissions made across the Bar, I am of the considered opinion that this is a subject matter to be settled by the parties before the District Forum itself in the Execution Petition filed by the 3rd respondent. 8. Taking note of the respective submissions made across the Bar, I am of the considered opinion that this is a subject matter to be settled by the parties before the District Forum itself in the Execution Petition filed by the 3rd respondent. In order to attain finality to the execution petition, 3rd respondent is directed to file a balance statement before the District Forum, Kottayam within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which shall attain finality within a further period of two weeks thereafter. The respondents shall take necessary steps to sell off the Indigo car specified above and attached in the E.P. and the same shall attain finality within a period of two months thereafter. After selling off the car, if amounts are due from the petitioners to the 3rd respondent, the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 series of recovery action can be taken. The whole proceedings shall attain finality at the earliest possible and in accordance with the directions above. 9. It is also made clear that if the petitioners have a case that there are lapses and laches on the part of the statutory authorities in selling off the car in 2008 or in a reasonable period thereafter, the liberty of the petitioners to take any action is left open. However, I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the said matter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.