IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26784 of 2011(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. RIYAS N.A, AGED 33,S/O.ABOOBACKER,NAMBOORI MADOM, AZHIKODE JETTY,KODUNGALLUR,THRISSUR, KERALA,PIN -680 666. 2. ABOOBACKER N.A, AGED 69, S/O.ALIKUNJU,NAMBOORI MADOM, AZHIKODE JETTY,KODUNGALLUR,THRISSUR, KERALA,PIN- 680 666. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE,KODUNGALLUR.PIN- 680 666. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AZHIKODE.PIN- 670 109 3. THE MANAGER,CANARA BANK, KODUNGALLUR BRANCH.PIN- 680 666. R1 & R2 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES R3 BY ADV.SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.26784/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1A TRUE COPY OF THE EDUCATIONAL LOAN SCHEME CIRCULATED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA TO THE SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL BANKS FOR IMPLEMENTATION. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 22.2.2011. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 28.3.2011. EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 247/2011. EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.S. 247/2011. EXT.P6(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 EXT.P6(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 34. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.26784 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent through respondents 1 & 2 for recovery of amounts due under an educational loan granted by the 3rd respondent to the petitioners. The petitioners submit that the bank has already filed a suit in respect of the same and therefore no revenue recovery proceedings can be initiated without quantification of the liability. The petitioners further submit that, the petitioners have a contention that the recovery is barred by limitation and therefore revenue recovery proceedings cannot be initiated in respect of the same. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty [1999 (2) KLT 146]. The petitioners further submit that without deciding the question of breach by an independent authority, the W.P.(C)No.26784 of 2011 -2- 3rd respondent cannot recover the amount. He further submits that until the suit is disposed of, the amount cannot be recovered, for which, he relies on the decision of this court in Kumari Varma v. State of Kerala & Ors. [2009 (4) KLT SN 71. 2. I have heard the Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent as well as the Government Pleader also. 3. As far as the reliance by the petitioners' counsel on Kumari Varma's case supra (which he has quoted in ground D of the writ petition also) is concerned I find that the said decision relates to ecologically fragile lands and totally inapplicable to this case. 4. As far as the question of limitation is concerned, it depends on facts to be proved by evidence. The petitioners admit having availed of a loan. The petitioners admit that they have not repaid the amount. The petitioners themselves state in the writ petition that, the bank has in their possession acknowledgments of debt, which according to the petitioners are fabricated records. Therefore the question as to whether there is limitation depends on proof W.P.(C)No.26784 of 2011 -3- of those facts which cannot be ascertained in a writ petition. As far as the question of breach is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners have availed of a loan and has not repaid the same. Further the fact that the bank has filed a suit does not bar the bank from resorting to revenue recovery proceedings since a notification under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act has been issued. If the petitioners' contention that without quantification of liability by way of a judgment in a suit no proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act can be initiated is accepted then the very purpose of the Revenue Recovery Act would be defeated. For all the above reasons, I am of opinion that the remedy of the petitioners lie in moving the civil court itself for appropriate reliefs in the matter. Without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/