Dismissed

The Deputy Tahsildar (Rr) v. K.v.Mosses

Kerala HC18 Feb 2016WA/786/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the judgment below, clarifying that while the Government can recover expenses incurred for attaching and publishing property for sale, it cannot recover collection charges under Rule 5 of Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules when the defaultee voluntarily settles via OTS.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; clarification that collection charges cannot be recovered under Rule 5.

The Deputy Tahsildar (Rr) Vs K.v.Mosses — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/29TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WA. No.786 of 2010 ( ) IN WP(C). No.15824/2006

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.15824/2006 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 29-08-2008.

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN THE WPC:

¶8

1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM-682 017.

¶9

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE WPC:

¶12

1. K.V.MOSSES, S/O. VAREED, KARUPPAN HOUSE, M/S. GUDDY CURRY POWDER, NAYATHODE P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, FINANCE TOWERS, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC SRI.T.V.GEORGE, SC, KFC SRI.WILSON URMESE

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

KRJ

¶17

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J &

¶18

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A No.786 of 2010

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2016

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Shaffique, J

¶23

This appeal has been filed by respondents 2 and 3 in W.P(C) No.15824 of 2006 challenging judgment dated 29.8.2008. By the said judgment, the writ petition is disposed of stating that since the petitioner has voluntarily settled the liability and no attachment or sale was conducted in the revenue recovery proceedings, the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as collection charges in terms of Rule 5 of Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules. Consequently, it was directed that Kerala Financial Corporation, the requisitioning authority, cannot recover any collection charges from the petitioner. It was also mentioned that the amount deposited by the petitioner

¶24

WA.786/10

¶25

-:2:-

¶26

towards the collection charges should be refunded after adjusting the costs, if any, incurred including publication cost.

¶27

According to the petitioner, he had availed a loan from Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC). The loan remained unpaid and thereafter revenue recovery steps were initiated. In the meantime, petitioner approached the KFC and effected the entire payment on One Time Settlement (OTS) basis. Thereafter, the KFC did not release the documents and had demanded the collection charges for the amount recovered.

¶28

The main contention urged by the petitioner was that when the amounts had been paid by way of OTS and, that too, voluntarily, the KFC is not entitled to recover collection charges.

¶29

It is not in dispute that the amounts had been remitted by the petitioner by way of OTS. At the relevant time when the settlement

¶30

was not effected, Rule 5(3) was not amended by which, a provision was incorporated under Revenue Recovery Rules permitting

¶31

WA.786/10 -:3:-

¶32

collection of 1% of the amount as revenue recovery charges. This issue had been considered by us in earlier judgment in W.A No.2449 of 2006 and connected cases dated 21.1.2006. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the property of the petitioner was attached and necessary publication in that regard had already been effected and it was proclaimed for sale. It was thereafter that the petitioner had approached the KFC and effected OTS.

¶33

We have already held that if any expenses are incurred by

¶34

the Government by initiating revenue recovery proceedings, it is always open for the Government to recovery such amount which they have incurred as expenditure. In fact, the learned Single Judge has already made such a provision in the impugned judgment. Under such circumstances, we do not think it necessary to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We only clarify that the expenditure incurred by the Government for attaching the property and publishing the same for sale can be recovered and however, they

¶35

-:4:-

¶36

WA.786/10

¶37

cannot recover the collection charges in terms of Rule 5 of the

¶38

Revenue Recovery Rules.

¶39

With the above observations, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶43

krj.18/2/16

¶44

//true copy// P.A to Judge

The Deputy Tahsildar (Rr) v. K.v.Mosses

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Tahsildar (Rr) v. K.v.Mosses

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

Cheruvatty Usman Haji Vs Sri. Surendran Kalliyadan

Premakrishnan Nair Vs Sri. Biju Prabhakar IAS

Leelamani K. Vs the Secretary to Government

Ajimon Vs Sherly Rajan

V.H.Abdul Salam Vs the Govt. of Kerala

Corporation of Kochi and Others Vs a.a.Abdul Rasheed Hajee