IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 W.P.(C).No. 5163 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BABY FRANCIS, KALAPPURACKAL PARAMBIL, POONJAR THEKKEKKARA, POONJAR P.O. KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. MR. A.A. ABUL HASSAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 5163 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had approached this Court earlier challenging the steps taken by the respondent Corporation by filing W.P.(C) No.19545 of 2009 which culminated in Ext.P2 judgment. The case of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that after passing the above verdict, the entire liability has been cleared by the petitioner and that there is some excess payment as well, which is to be refunded with interest, simultaneously seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to lift the attachment over the mortgaged property. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation with reference to the contents of the statement submits that the amount which was due to be satisfied by the petitioner has been worked out as clearly explained therein and that there is no collection of excess amount at all. It is also stated that the second respondent has not collected any recovery charges and no demand has been made in this regard; simultaneously adding W.P.(C) No. 5163 OF 2010 2 that the attachment, if at all to be lifted, is to be made by the first respondent . 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submits that Ext. P2 judgment was passed directing to release the title deeds within one week from the date of clearance of the due amount to be paid to the second respondent . But with regard to the collection charges, the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Malabar Organics Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2009(4) KLT 328) was followed, virtually giving full relief to the petitioner to the effect that no collection charges are liable to be realised. The learned Government Pleader submits that the above verdict in 2009 (4) KLT 328 and also Ext.P2 judgment passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner have already been subjected to challenge by filing SLP before the Supreme Court wherein interim orders have already been passed. The learned Government Pleader submits that the actual collection charges payable under the Revenue Recovery Act is Rs. 53,023/- and if the said amount is satisfied by the petitioner , the attachment could be ordered to be lifted as prayed for by the petitioner. W.P.(C) No. 5163 OF 2010 3 4. After hearing both the sides, the petitioner is directed either to clear the said amount for the time being or to furnish Bank Guarantee for the said amount, on which event, the attachment over the property in question will stand lifted forthwith. This will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to have the matter pursued subject to the outcome of the decision to be passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the concerned matter arising from Ext.P2 judgment. Since allegation of excess collection charge is seriously disputed by the said respondent giving calculation in the statement dated 24.02.2010 showing that there is no excess collection charge, the said issue is left open. It is for the petitioner, if he is still aggrieved, to approach the second respondent pointing out the mistake, if any, on which event, the matter shall be considered and finalised by the second respondent with reference to the actual facts and figures. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk