W.P. (C) No. 28458 of 2008. Case: Siddique Vs Tahsildar. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | W.P. (C) No. 28458 of 2008 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K. S. Rajesh & Shaju Purushothaman, Advs. and For Respondents: N. Manoj Kumar, Jayasree Manoj & K. A. Sanjeetha, Government Pleader |
| Judges | Antony Dominic, J. |
| Issue | Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 - Sections 68, 69(2), 71 |
| Judgement Date | April 03, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
Antony Dominic, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the standing counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. In 1995, the petitioner availed of a loan of ` 57,000/- from respondents 3 and 4. Recommitted default and even according to respondents 3 and 4 requisition under S. 69(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act was issued for realising dues, only in the year 2007. Pursuant to the said requisition, Exts. P4 and P5 under the Revenue Recovery Act were issued for recovering ` 1,84,198/-. It is challenging the recovery proceedings, the Writ Petition is filed.
2. Two contentions are raised. The first contention is that the petitioner has already paid the entire amount due and therefore, the recovery proceedings are illegal. This contention of the petitioner is answered in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4, which reads thus:
The various grounds urged in the Writ Petition are not tenable. The petitioner has only repaid an amount of ` 27,780/- towards the loan account. The petitioner has not paid any amount after August, 1997. A sum of ` 1,84,198/- was outstanding as balance as on 24.1.2008 and the respondents 3 and 4 are entitled to realise the same from the petitioner and his assets.
3. In the light of the above averments in the counter affidavit, I am unable to accept the case of the petitioner that the entire liability has been discharged.
4. The second contention raised is that the debt is a time barred one and therefore, cannot be recovered. This contention of the petitioner is answered by respondents 3 and 4 relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Godan Namboothiripad v. Kerala Financial Corporation, Vellayambalam & Ors. (AIR 1998 Ker. 31), where it has been held as follows:
Even if it is assumed that the Limitation Act is applicable, the amount due to the institution notified under S. 71 of the K.R.R. Act is treated on a par with the amounts due to the Government in terms of S. 68 and as such Art. 112 of the Limitation Act shall govern the case. It provides a period of 30 years as the period of limitation for filing suits to recover the amount due to Government. In view of this Full Bench decision, the finding of the Board of Revenue and the State Government on this issue in Exts.P2 and P4 therefore, cannot be sustained.
5. Therefore, counsel contended that since their institution is notified under S. 71, they are entitled to the extended...
To continue reading
Request your trial