Dismissed

Sibichan Thomas, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jul 2024WP(C)/20089/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the initiation of revenue recovery proceedings for rental arrears, claiming they were barred by limitation as actions were taken over seven years after the lease termination. The court held that initial requisitions in 2015 established a cause of action, making the later 2022 notice valid.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash revenue recovery proceedings and stop recovery was dismissed.

Sibichan Thomas, Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY 2024 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 20089 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 SIBICHAN THOMAS,

¶7

AGED 54 YEARS, S/O A.V. THOMAS SUSMITHA, NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE MELEPURAM, OLAVAKKODE PALAKKAD - 678 002.

¶8

2 DARLY MANI, AGED 55 YEARS W/O LATE ADV. KV MANI KALLUVELIL HOUSE PERUMPADARI P.O. MANNARGHAT, PALAKKAD - 678 582.

¶9

BY ADV U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM 695 001.

¶12

2 KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PB NO.50, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANATHAURAM 695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

3 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED PB NO.50, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANATHAURAM 695 001.

¶14

4 THE HEAD (INDUSTRIAL ESTATE) DIVISION, KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED PB NO.50,

¶15

W.P.(C)No.20089 of 2022

¶16

:2:

¶17

HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANATHAURAM 695 001.

¶18

5 THE ESTATE OFFICER, KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED INDUSTRIAL ESTATE OLAVAKKODE 678 002.

¶19

6 THE TAHSILDHAR, MANNARGHAT TALUK, MANNARGHAT PALAKKAD 678 582.

¶20

7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANNARGHAT I VILLAGE, MANNARGHAT TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678.

¶21

BY ADVS. SMT.RESHMI THOMAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P.(C)No.20089 of 2022

¶24

:3:

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Dated this the 22^nd day of July, 2024

¶27

The petitioners seek to call for the records relating to

¶28

Ext.P16 and to set aside the same. The petitioners also seek to command respondents 2 to 5 not to initiate any recovery proceedings against the petitioners in respect of alleged rental liability forming part of Ext.P16 Revenue Recovery proceedings.

¶29

2 . The petitioners were partners of a Firm functioning in Industrial Estate, Palakkad. On the failure of the petitioners to pay the rental, the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Limited terminated the Rental Agreement on 14.09.2023 and resumed possession of the industrial

¶30

premises occupied by the petitioners.

¶31

W.P.(C)No.20089 of 2022

¶32

:4:

¶33

3 . The petitioners state that after nine long years, the Corporation has initiated recovery proceedings for realisation of ₹11.5 lakhs towards the rental arrears. The petitioners were

¶34

issued with Revenue Recovery notice on 26.04.2022.

¶35

4 . The petitioners would urged that the Revenue Recovery proceedings are barred by limitation. The limitation period is governed by Article 52 of the Limitation Act. Proceedings ought to have been initiated against the petitioners within three years. The Revenue Recovery proceedings are seen initiated after more than seven years. Therefore, the proceedings now initiated as per Ext.P16 is liable to be quashed.

¶36

5 . Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel pointed out that possession of the industrial premises was taken over in the year 2015. The Revenue Recovery requisition was given to

¶37

the District Collector, Kottayam in the year 2015 itself. Later, it

¶38

W.P.(C)No.20089 of 2022

¶39

:5:

¶40

was found that the petitioners have shifted their residence to Palakkad. Thereupon, the District Collector, Kottayam informed the Corporation to approach the District Collector, Palakkad. Thereafter, Revenue Recovery requisition was submitted to the District Collector, Palakkad, in the year 2022. As the Corporation has initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings in the year 2015 itself, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that the revenue recovery is barred by limitation.

¶41

6 . I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners

¶42

and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 to 5. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader representing respondent 1, 6 and 7.

¶43

7 . The pleadings in the writ petition would indicate that the possession of the industrial premises earlier occupied by the petitioners was taken over by the Corporation on 03.07.2015. This is evident from Ext.R3(c). Ext.R3(e) would

¶44

W.P.(C)No.20089 of 2022

¶45

:6:

¶46

show that the Corporation had issued Revenue Recovery requisition to the District Collector, Kottayam on 29.06.2015. The District Collector later informed the petitioners as per Ext.R3(i), on 25.05.2020, that the petitioners are not residing in the address provided by the petitioners and are now residing in Palakkad.

¶47

8 . Accordingly, the District Collector, Palakkad was addressed who in turn issued a Revenue Recovery requisition on 23.04.2022 as is evident from Ext.R3(j). While occupying the industrial premises, the petitioners had given their address at Kottayam. This is evident from Exts.P1 and R3(d). It is not disputed that the 1 st petitioner has shifted his residence to Palakkad.

¶48

9 . Taking into consideration the fact that the Corporation had issued Revenue Recovery requisition in the year 2015 itself, as can be seen from Ext.R3(e), I am of the view that the steps taken by the Corporation is within the

¶49

W.P.(C)No.20089 of 2022

¶50

:7:

¶51

period of limitation. The facts that another Revenue Recovery requisition was sent to the District Collector, Palakkad in the

¶52

year 2022, due to the change of residence of the petitioners cannot be reason to treat the proceedings as belated and barred by limitation.

¶53

The writ petition is therefore without any merit and hence dismissed.

Sd/- N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

ams

W.P.(C)No.20089 of 2022

¶58

:8:

¶59

¶60

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶61

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED
	13..2.2006 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND SDICO .
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 08.05.2009 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS OF THE PETITIONERS .
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF THE PETITIONERS TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 9.6.2009 .
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF FINAL NOTICE PRIOR TO TERMINATION DATED 28.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 06.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 24.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 07.02.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THIRD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 08.04.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.Q
Exhibit P11	A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 7.9.2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶62

W.P.(C)No.20089 of 2022

¶63

:9:

¶64

Exhibit P12	A TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION ORDER DATED
	4.9.2013 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13	A TRUE COPY OF FINAL NOTICE DATED 12.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P14	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 29..6.2015 TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P15	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 7.12.2015 SUBMITTED TO 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P16 RESPONDENT EXHIB	A TRUE COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7 DATED 26.4.2022 ITS
Exhibit-R3(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18.1.2006 OF THE M.D., SIDCO
Exhibit-R3(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF EVICTION DATED 11.03.2015 ISSUED TO THE
	PETITIONER BY ESTATE OFFICER, KERALA SIDCO
Exhibit-R3(c)	TRUE COPY OF THE SPOT MAHAZAR DATED 3.7.2015 PREPARED BY THE ESTATE OFFICER, KERALA SIDCO
Exhibit-R3(d)	TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY PROOF I.E. IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA DATED 11.8.1998 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF ALLOTMENT
Exhibit-R3(e)	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION LETTER DATED 29.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA SIDCO TO THE
	DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM

¶65

:10:

¶66

W.P.(C)No.20089 of 2022

¶67

Exhibit-R3(f)	TRUE COPY	OF THE	COMMUNICATION DATED
	08.07.2015, RESPONDENT KOTTAYAM	ISSU TO THE	ED BY THE 3RD DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
Exhibit-R3(g)	TRUE COMMU ISSUED BY DISTRICT CO	NICATION THE 3RD LLECTOR,	DATED 23.05.2017, RESPONDENT TO THE KOTTAYAM
Exhibit-R3(h)	TRUE COMMU ISSUED BY DISTRICT CO	NICATION THE 3RD LLECTOR,	DATED 19.12.2017, RESPONDENT TO THE KOTTAYAM
Exhibit-R3(i)	TRUE COP 25.05.2020 COLLECTOR, RESPONDENT	Y OF GIVEN KOTTA	THE REPLY DATED BY THE DISTRICT YAM TO THE 3RD
Exhibit-R3(j)	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED DISTRICT 23.4.2022	OF THE BY KER COLLECTO	REQUISITION REQUEST ALA SIDCO TO THE R, PALAKKAD DATED
Exhibit-R3(k)	TRUE COPY 6.11.2010 BEFORE THE	OF SUBMITT M.D., KE	THE LETTER DATED ED BY PETITIONER RALA SIDCO LTD.
Exhibit-R3(l)	TRUE COPY 10.03.2011 SIDCO	OF T ISSUED	HE CIRCULAR DATED BY THE M.D., KERALA
Exhibit-R3(m)	TRUE COPY 31.03.2011 THE PETITIO	OF ISSUED NER	THE LETTER DATED FROM KERALA SIDCO TO
Exhibit-R3(o)	TRUE COPY 31.08.2011 KERALA SIDC	OF THE ISSUED O LIMITE	COMMUNICATION DATED TO THE PETITIONER BY D
Exhibit-R3(p)	TRUE COPY 24.11.2011 KERALA SIDC	OF THE ISSUED O LIMITE	COMMUNICATION DATED TO THE PETITIONER BY D
Exhibit-R3(n)	TRUE COPY 13.06.2011	OF THE ISSUED	COMMUNICATIONS DATED TO THE PETITIONER BY

¶68

W.P.(C)No.20089 of 2022

¶69

:11:

¶70

KERALA SIDCO LIMITED Exhibit-R3(q) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.01.2012 ISSUED BY HEAD-IE DIVISION, KERALA SIDCO LIMITED TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit-R3(r) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.12.2012 ISSUED BY HEAD - I.E. - DIVISION, KERALA SIDCO LIMITED TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit-R3(s) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.01.2013 ISSUED BY HEAD - I.E. - DIVISION, KERALA SIDCO LIMITED TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit-R3(t) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.04.2013 ISSUED BY HEAD IE DIVISION, KERALA SIDCO LIMITED TO THE PETITIONER

Sibichan Thomas, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sibichan Thomas, v. the State of Kerala

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

George Philip Vs the Joint Registrar General

Mansoor Vs the Tirur Sahakarana Karshika Grama Vikasana Bank Ltd. .

Global Building Materials, Vs State of Kerala

K.R.Narayana Pillai Vs Union of India

Reghu K.G Vs the Joint Registrar for Co. Operative Society (General)

P.N.Sasankan Vs the Special Sale Officer