Dismissed

Abdul Razak K v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Kerala HC1 Jun 2015WP(C)/3/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged bank recovery proceedings and sought a stay by approaching the Land Revenue Commissioner. Court held the Land Revenue Commissioner lacked jurisdiction and directed the Bank to offer a one-time settlement with installment options.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Bank for one-time settlement within two weeks with five monthly installments; recovery permissible if any single instalment defaults.

Abdul Razak K Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2015/11TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 3 of 2015 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

------------------

¶8

ABDUL RAZAK K., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MOOSAKUTTY, KODUNNOTTIL HOUSE, KANDAMANGALAM (P.O), PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 601.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM SMT.NASEEHA BEEGUM P.S.

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

-----------------------

¶12

1. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, EAST FORT, VELLAYAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAMPIN - 695 010.

¶13

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶14

S.B.T., MANNARKKAD BRANCH, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN - 678 582.

¶15

3. STATE OF KERALA

¶16

REP. BY SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMPIN - 695 001.

¶17

R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SSMT. SHERIN R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP(C).No. 3 of 2015 (A)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF PASS BOOK ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14.5.2014 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE IST RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶30

===================== W.P.(C) No.3 of 2015 - A ====================== Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2015

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner is aggrieved with the recovery

¶33

proceedings initiated by the 2^nd respondent Bank for recovery of an admitted loan availed of from the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner's contention is that, the petitioner has filed a representation before the 1^st respondent and till such time, the recovery be kept in abeyance. On a reading of the representation, it is seen that, due to natural calamities, there was loss and hence, the petitioner was not able to pay off the amounts due in the loan account. The petitioner seeks relief insofar as remittance of the principal and the interest levied in the account. It is to be noticed that, the 1^st respondent does not have any jurisdiction to grant such reliefs in a loan availed of from the 2^nd respondent Bank. The petitioner if at all would have to approach the 2^nd respondent Bank for such reliefs.

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C) No.3 of 2015 - A

¶36

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, Ext.P2 representation may be considered as a revision under Section 83(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for brevity, 'the RR Act'). Even if it is a revision, under Section 83(1) of the RR Act, the petitioner cannot seek for the relief demanded under the powers conferred on the Land Revenue Commissioner, the 1^st respondent herein, by Section 83(1) of the RR Act. If the 2^nd respondent has been notified under the provisions of the RR Act and the loan is one in which such recovery could be effected would be the only questions that could be considered by the Land Revenue Commissioner. Even if Ext.P2 is deemed to be a revision filed under Section 83(1) of the Act, the contention taken is not with respect to the jurisdiction.

¶37

In such circumstance, the pendency of Ext.P2 representation would be of no avail to the petitioner. The petitioner however shall approach the 2^nd respondent Bank within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C) No.3 of 2015 - A

¶40

this judgment and the Bank shall consider any relief that could possibly be given to the petitioner's account, so that a one time settlement can be arrived at. If the petitioner does not approach the 2^nd respondent Bank with a certified copy of the judgment, the 2^nd respondent Bank shall compute the amounts due and issue a fresh statement of account by registered post and the petitioner shall also be granted five monthly instalments for remittance of the same starting from 02.07.2015. Any future interest also shall be demanded as the 6^th instalment. If the petitioner does not pay any one single instalment, then the Bank would be entitled to proceed for recovery.

¶41

The writ petition is dismissed with the above

¶42

directions.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶45

¶46

// true copy //

¶47

P.A to Judge.

Abdul Razak K v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Razak K v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Penna Cement Industries Limited Vs the Union of India

Rama Naik Vs Commissioner, Land Revenue

William P K Vs the State of Kerala

Ayamukutty N. Vs Land Revenue Commissioner

Thomas Stephen Vs the Accomadation Controller and Taluk Thahasildar

Ramiya Banu Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.