Dismissed

Prasanna v. Land Revenue Commissioner

Kerala HC22 Aug 2022WP(C)/26695/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging revenue recovery proceedings, the High Court of Kerala, Emulating earlier directions in connected cases, granted an interim stay for three months to allow petitioners to approach civil or criminal forums as an alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

Stay of revenue recovery proceedings for three months to facilitate alternative remedy via civil suit or criminal complaint.

Prasanna Vs Land Revenue Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C).26695/22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 26695 OF 2022

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 PRASANNA

¶10

AGED 37 YEARS

¶11

W/O REGHUNATHAN, NEYPLAVILPADEETTETHIL, PERINGALAPPURAM,CHENGANNUR,ALAPPUZHA-689624.

¶12

2 USHASUNIL,

¶13

W/O SUNILKUMAR, USHAS,PERINGALAPPURAM,THONACKADU, CHENGANNUR,ALAPPUZHA-689511.

¶14

3 SUSEELA

¶15

W/O RAJAN, THIKKAVETTATHU HOUSE BUDHANOOR,PERINGALAPPURAM, CHENGANNUR,ALAPPUZHA-689624.

¶16

4 K.S.JAYASREE,

¶17

W/O K.M.THAMPAN,AMPADI, BUDHANOOR,PERINGALAPPURAM, CHENGANNUR,ALAPPUZHA-689624.

¶18

5 PRAMEELA W/O SURESH KATTUMTHADATHIL, BUDHANOOR, PERNGALAPPURAM, CHENGANNUR,ALAPPUZHA-689624.

¶19

BY ADV P.VINODKUMAR

¶20

RESPONDENT/S:

¶21

1 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER O/O THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUMROAD, OPPOSITE ZOO.VIKASBHAVAN P.O,THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695033.

¶22

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE ALAPPUZHA DST..688001.

¶23

3 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), CHENGANNUR TALUK OFFICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA -689121.

¶24

WP(C).26695/22

¶25

¶26

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ENNAKAD, ENNAKKAD, P.O,CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN689624.

¶27

5 THE UNION BANK, CHENGANNUR BRANCH, REP BY ITS MANAGER, CHENGANNURP.O,ALAPPUZHA PIN-689121.

¶28

6 THE SECRETARY, S.N.D.P CHENGANNUR UNION, CHENGANNUR P.O. ALAPPUZHA. 689121.

¶29

OTHER PRESENT:

¶30

GP AMMINIKUTTY K. SC FOR UBI A.S.P.KURUP

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).26695/22

V.G.ARUN, J.

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 26695 of 2022

¶36

Dated this the 22^nd day of August, 2022

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

This writ petition is filed challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of the 5^th respondent Bank. The essential facts are as under;

¶39

Petitioners are members of Micro Finance Units constituted by the SNDP Yogam for the welfare of its members. According to the petitioners, on the instruction of the 6^th respondent, Micro Finance Units were constituted in the SNDP Branch No.151, Peringalapuram in Chengannur Taluk, of which the petitioners are members. The units were to receive financial assistance from various banks on the guarantee given by the 6^th respondent. Repayment of the loan amounts was to be effected by the 6^th respondent after collecting the amounts from members like the petitioners. The petitioners allege that, even though the amounts due towards the loans availed by their units members, was collected from the 6^th respondent did not remit those amounts to the loan availed from the 5^th respondent. This resulted in the 5^th respondent initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioners. Hence this writ petition.

¶40

WP(C).26695/22

¶41

¶42

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the 6^th respondent cheated the petitioner by collecting amounts from them misappropriating those amounts without remitting it towards the loan account. It is pointed out that the petitioners have filed a civil suit and has also initiated criminal proceedings against the 6^th respondent.

¶43

Learned Counsel for the 5^th respondent Bank made available a copy of the judgment in W.P(C).No.2335 of 2019 and connected cases rendered by this Court in the writ petitions filed by similarly placed persons. Therein, after elaborate consideration of the grievances highlighted by the petitioners, this Court issued the following directions:

¶44

“i. The petitioners are free to challenge the recovery proceedings against them, in accordance to law, by availing the alternative remedy. To facilitate the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy, revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners in these cases are stayed for a period of three months from today. During the above period, the petitioners can do the needful to avail the alternative remedy.

¶45

ii. The petitioners in these cases can approach the jurisdictional Station House Officer concerned with a complaint narrating their grievance, if no criminal case is registered in connecetion with their grievance. If such a complaint is received the Station House Officer concerned will do the needful, in accordance to law.

¶46

iii. The petitioners can approach the State Police Chief with a representation to investigate the criminal cases registered in connection with these cases by constituting a Special Team and if such a representation is received, the

¶47

WP(C).26695/22

¶48

¶49

State Police Chief will do the needful, in accordance to law. iv. If any of the cases registered based on the complaint of the petitioners are reached the stage of trial, the aggrieved party/prosecution witnesses in those cases can approach the jurisdictional Court with a petition for an early disposal of those cases and if such a petition is received, the jurisdictional Court will try to expedite the trial and will conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible.”

¶50

I am in respectful agreement with the directions contained in the aforementioned judgment.

¶51

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already availed the alternative remedy by approaching the civil court and have initiated criminal proceedings against the 6^th respondent. Further, the petitioners have also filed Exhibit P6 petition before the 1^st respondent under Section 83(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. It is hence requested that, over and above the directions contained in the judgment in W.P(C).No.2335 of 2019 and connected cases, there should also be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider Exhibit P6 representation in a time bound manner.

¶52

Learned Government Pleader points out that revenue recovery proceedings were initiated way back in 2020 and Exhibit P6 is seen filed only on 27.6.2022.

¶53

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the delay had occasioned due to COVID-19 pandemic and related issues.

¶54

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as follows;

¶55

WP(C).26695/22

¶56

¶57

I. The petitioners are free to challenge the recovery proceedings initiated against them by availing the remedy under the Revenue Recovery Act. In order to provide an opportunity for the petitioners to avail such alternative remedy, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three months from today.

¶58

II. The petitioners can approach the State Police Chief with a representation to investigate the criminal cases registered in connection with these cases by constituting a Special Team and if such a representation is received, the State Police Chief will do the needful, in accordance to law.

¶59

III. If the cases registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioners have reached the stage of trial, the aggrieved party/prosecution witnesses in those cases can approach the jurisdictional Court with a petition for early disposal of those cases and if such a petition is received, the jurisdictional Court will try to expedite and conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

vgs

WP(C).26695/22

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26695/2022

¶66

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶67

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 7 REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 21.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 11.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 11.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 11.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 13.01.2021 RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION U/S. 83(1) OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT, 1968 DATED 27-06-2022.

Prasanna v. Land Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanna v. 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

T.v.Sunil Vs the Kerala Agro- Industries Corporation Ltd.

Baby Saroja Vs Managing Director

Baby Saroja Vs Managing Director, Kerala Financial Corporation

Madhu Sankarankutty Vs State of Kerala

Gabriel E. Joseph, Vs the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports

Mr.Kunji Mohammed, Vs the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.