Allowed

Deputy Tahasildar (Rr) v. M.a.Vijayanathan Pillai

Kerala HC23 Feb 2016WA/91/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal disposed allowing refund of 5% collection charges collected by Kerala Financial Corporation after the petitioner settled loan dues. Court held authorities entitled only to actual expenditure incurred for recovery proceedings. Refund discretionary within two months post judgment.

What did the court decide?

Refund of 5% collection charges less actual recovery expenses determined by authorities within two months.

Deputy Tahasildar (Rr) Vs M.a.Vijayanathan Pillai — Banking and Recovery | 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

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/4TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WA. No.91 of 2010 ( ) IN WP(C). No.13578/2006

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.13578/2006 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 24-09-2008.

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE W.P(C):

¶8

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (HR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN THE W.P.(C):

¶11

1. M.A.VIJAYANATHAN PILLAI, KUNNATHUMANA HOUSE, SANTHI NAGARAM, SREEMOOLANAGARAM, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

2. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

3. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, FINANCE TOWER, KALOOR KOCHI-682 017, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶14

R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE, SC, KFC R1 BY ADV.SRI.C.A.MAJEED

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-02-2016 ALONG WITH WPC. NO.37658/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

KRJ

¶17

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A No.91 of 2010 & W.P(C) No.37658 of 2009

¶19

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2016

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Shaffique, J

¶22

The appeal has been filed by the third respondent in W.P(C) No.13578 of 2006 challenging the judgment dated 24.9.2008 by which, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition observing that the respondents have to refund the collection charges, if any, collected from the petitioner, within a period of three months. It was also observed that since the writ petitioner had remitted the entire amount directly to the Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC) even before steps were taken under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, he has no obligation to pay the collection charges.

¶23

The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, inter ali a, contending that he had availed a loan from the KFC which was

¶24

WA.91/10&WPC.37658/09

¶25

-:2:-

¶26

settled by him in terms of One time Settlement (OTS). The amount actually demanded in terms of the OTS was paid. In the meantime when there was a default, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated. But, according to him, since the payment had already been made on the basis of OTS, there was no reason for demanding any collection charges. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court since the revenue recovery proceedings were not cancelled, though he had paid the entire arrears due to KFC. The petitioner sought for the following reliefs:

¶27

(i)“Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to initiate the Village Office and the Sub-Registry regarding withdrawal of revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner.

¶28

(ii)Declare that the respondents are duty bound to issue clearance certificate regarding full satisfaction of the dues on payment of the total demand made on the petitioner;

¶29

W.P(C) No.37658 of 2009 has been filed by the very same

¶30

petitioner in W.P(C) No.13578 of 2006, inter alia , contending that he

¶31

WA.91/10&WPC.37658/09 -:3:-

¶32

had remitted the collection charges as demanded by the Corporation

¶33

and, therefore, sought for refund of the same.

¶34

It is contended by the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellant in W.A No.91 of 2010 that the State had to spent large amounts for issuing notice and publishing the property for sale. In paragraph (3) of the memorandum of appeal, it is stated that notice under Section 49 of the Revenue Recovery Act was also issued, served and published. It was further stated that publication was made in newspapers as well and the sale of the property was posted on 13.12.2004, 22.10.2005 etc., after following the necessary formalities. However, the sale did not materialise. It is contended that the State is entitled to recover the actual expenditure involved in the proceedings which the revenue authorities have taken though not 5% collection charges.

¶35

In fact, an amendment was incorporated into the Revenue Recovery Rules as per Amendment Rules of 2008 by which, sub-rule

¶36

WA.91/10&WPC.37658/09

¶37

-:4:-

¶38

(3) was inserted permitting imposition of 1% of the collection amount as service charge.

¶39

It is apparent that the above provision was not applicable to

¶40

the fact situation as the amendment came into effect after the date when the entire payment has been effected by the writ petitioner. In fact, we have already held that the revenue recovery authorities are entitled to collect the actual expenses, in such circumstances. Under

¶41

such circumstances, the judgment of the learned Single judge requires to be modified.

¶42

In the result, the appeal and the writ petition are disposed of as under:

¶43

(i)That the revenue recovery authorities are entitled to recover the actual expenditure incurred by them for issuing notice and publishing the property for sale, along with all expenses in terms of rules other than collection charges of 5%.

¶44

-:5:-

¶45

WA.91/10&WPC.37658/09

¶46

(ii)That the amount already collected towards 5% collection

¶47

charges shall be refunded to the petitioner after deducting the actual expenditure incurred by the revenue authorities as stated in clause (i) above.

¶48

(iii)This shall be done within a period of two months from

¶49

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE

¶51

Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶52

krj.23/2/16

Deputy Tahasildar (Rr) v. M.a.Vijayanathan Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deputy Tahasildar (Rr) v. M.a.Vijayanathan Pillai

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

Jathavedan Namboothiri Vs Rajalakshmi

The Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram Vs Smt.Sobhana Kumari S.

National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs John K.O.

Stanly John Vs Valsala Rajan

The Custodian of Vested Forests Vs Jaise Jacob

V.K.Ramachandran Nair Vs Mrs.v.K.Radhamani Amma and Others