IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 717 of 2008(H) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.9105/2008 Dated 25/03/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN THE W.P(C) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R) KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-17. 2. THE DIST. COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI. K.V.MANOJ KUMAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE W.P(C): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.A. POULOSE, KURUPPAN HOUSE NAYATHODE P.O., ANGAMALY ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION BRANCH OFFICE, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM BY ADV SHRI. WILSON URUMESE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- R.P.NO: 717 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) No.9105 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 21st July, 2008. O R D E R Review of the judgment in W.P(C) 9105/08 is sought for. 2. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has settled his liability directly with K.F.C availing of the benefit of one time settlement scheme, this Court held that the petitioner cannot be made liable for collection charges and that without insisting on such payment, attachment over the mortgaged property shall be lifted. 3. Respondents in the writ petition have filed this review petition contending that since they have initiated revenue recovery proceedings, they are entitled to collection charges. This position is settled in favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench judgment reported in Bhaskaran v. Sub Registrar {2005(3) KLT 150} wherein this Court held that unless recovery is effected through revenue recovery machinery, the defaulter cannot be made liable for collection charges. In this case, it is not the case of the review petitioners that they have recovered any amount by utilising the R.P.NO: 717/08 IN WPC 9105/08 2 machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act. If that be so, there is absolutely no error in the judgment. Review petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE jj