Allowed petitioner's writ petition. Held that fresh revenue recovery proceedings initiated in 1999 were barred by limitation given the age of the loan and prior sale of movables in 1990. Ordered quashing of the recovery notice.
Order passed to allow the petition and quash the recovery proceedings initiated by Ext.P1.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
TUESDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1929
OP.No. 242 of 2000(D) ---------------------
PETITIONER:
P. CHANDRAMOHAN, THOPPUVELIYIL HOUSE, AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST. PIN 688 534
BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)
R1,R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. TEKCHAND
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER ON CMP 306 OF 2000 IN OP 242 OF 2000
DISMISSED
13.11.2007 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 30.10.99 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE.
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
O.P. NO. 242 OF 2000
Dated this the 13th day of November, 2007
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is challenging revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of loan availed from the third respondent. I heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the third respondent. Even though copy of counter affidavit is not available in the file, I have taken a copy from counsel and read the same. There is substantial controversy on facts particularly with regard to the amount recovered through attachment and sale of petitioner's property. However, it is conceded by the Bank that petitioner has remitted Rs. 3,000/- and a sum of Rs. 3,750/- was remitted by the Government towards subsidy. As against Rs. 14,000/- claimed by the petitioner, the Bank has conceded that Rs. 2450/- was recovered by attachment and sale of movables of the petitioner, which happened on 5.11.1990, loan having been availed in 1985. As against total loan amount of Rs. 15,000/- and interest payable thereon, total credit that has gone to the loan account is Rs. 9200/-. Petitioner's case is that Ext.P1 revenue recovery proceedings initiated on 3.11.1990 is time barred. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in
2
STATE OF KERALA V. V.R. KALLIYANIKUTTY, (1999) 2 K.L.T. 146 (SC). However, the case of the third respondent is that revenue recovery proceedings were initiated in the year 1989 and Ext.P1 is a continuation of that proceedings. On the face of it, I am unable to accept the contention of the Bank. Ext.P1 appears to be a fresh proceedings initiated on 30.10.1999. The earlier revenue recovery proceedings probably would have been closed in 1990 itself when the movables attached from the petitioner were sold and amount paid to the Bank. The documents produced by the Bank are of 1988 and 1989 and these documents obviously cannot save limitation, because recovery is again initiated only on 30.10.1999. Since loan is 23 years old, and petitioner's movables were attached and sold 10 years back, I do not think fresh recovery proceedings initiated vide Ext.P1 is tenable because of limitation. In the circumstances, O.P. is allowed quashing recovery proceedings, Ext.P1, on the ground of limitation.
(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether revenue recovery proceedings initiated via Ext.P1 dated 30.10.1999 were time barred in view of the loan being 23 years old and previous attachment of movables occurring 10 years back.
Whether the claim for quashing of the recovery proceedings is well founded on the ground of limitation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala v. V.R. KalliyanikuttýReferred¶31
STATE OF KERALA V. V.R. KALLIYANIKUTTY, (1999) 2 K.L.T. 146
P. Chandramohan
Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, Cherthala
District Collector, Alappuzha
State Bank of India, Rep. by its Manager, Aroor Branch
Village Officer, Aroor
C.N. Ramachandran Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
