IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32570 of 2008(B) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SODARAN, SRIKRISHNA NILAYAM EDAMULLAKAL PO., ANCHAL , KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI SRI.INDIARA RAVEEDNRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION REP. BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER BRANCH OFFICE, AGC COMPLEX, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-691001. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 STANDING COUNSEL SRI. A.A. ABDUL HASSAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 32570 / 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Ext.P1 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.10.2008. Ext.P2 : COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.22413/H3/08/RD DTD 21.08.08. Ext.P3 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.20124 OF 2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : Ext.R2(a) : COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.107/08/RD DTD 24.4.08. // True Copy // PA to Judge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 32570 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. Grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of settlement of payment of the entire loan amount, the title deeds with respect to the property mortgaged with the first respondent corporation has not been returned, claiming that the petitioner need pay collection charges also, with respect to the Revenue Recovery Proceedings initiated. 2. According to the petitioner the amounts were deposited directly to the first respondent corporation and no amount was recovered through Revenue Recovery steps. It is further pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court in the decision, Usha Mary Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation and others (2009(4) KHC 254 = 2009 Volume (4) KLT 328), had held that, as far as KFC and KSFE are concerned even the service charges cannot be realized, because those institutions have got their own machineries of recovery, by utilising service of the officers of State Government and the entire expenses including the salary W.P.(C) NO. 32570/2008 2 and maintenance are met by those institutions. It is held that what is permissible is only recovery of expenses as provided under items (i) to (vii) in the table under Rule 4 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules. 3. In view of the ruling cited above, if the demand remaining is only with respect to collection charges or service charge, such demand shall be treated as quashed, and the petitioner shall be returned with the documents of title relating to the property mortgaged. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE SS