IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1541 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26784/2011 Dated 11/10/2011 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 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, AHIKODE JETTY. KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680 666. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AZHIKODE. 3. THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, KODUNGALLUR BRANCH. R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA R3 BY SRI.V.B. HARINARAYANAN, SC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 1541 of 2011 APPENDIX APPELLANTS' EXHIBIT: ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 AND TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 14.10.2011. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1541 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. The Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of loan availed by the appellants from the third respondent-Bank. 2. The appellants' case is that the Bank has filed suit for recovery of the loan amount and therefore, simultaneously, the revenue recovery proceedings cannot be initiated. The Standing Counsel for the Bank, on the other hand, submitted that the loans are covered by notification issued under the Revenue Recovery Act and therefore, the Bank is free to proceed with recovery irrespective of the suit filed. The appellants have a case that the claim is barred by limitation, which is flatly disputed by the Standing Counsel for the Bank on the ground that the debt is acknowledged and 60 months period was granted for repayment. WA.1541/11 2 3. According to the Bank's counsel, recovery initiated is perfectly within the period of limitation. The learned Single Judge did not interfere because the dispute on limitation and other matters have to be decided based on facts and evidence and in a writ proceedings it is not for this Court to consider the same. In fact, the appellants are given freedom to file civil suit. 4. After hearing both sides, we do not think that any civil suit is required in a recovery proceedings to challenge the same. The Revenue Recovery Act provides for a mechanism to settle the disputes arising in recovery proceedings by the authorities under the Statute. The appellants have also filed Annexure A1 objection before all the recovery authorities. Before attachment or sale of the property, the objection should be considered by the first respondent and also after hearing the third respondent-Bank and if any legal opinion is required, it is for both sides to furnish the same to the first respondent and only being satisfied that the recovery is permissible, the first respondent will proceed with the recovery. The Writ Appeal is disposed of modifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge with a direction to the first respondent to WA.1541/11 3 consider and decide the objection within two weeks and thereafter proceed for recovery. If recovery is not maintainable for any reason, he should issue order to the Bank and return the revenue recovery to the Bank and if tenable to proceed with recovery. If revenue recovery is returned, the Bank is free to challenge the correctness of the order. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE vgs