IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 38030 of 2007(B) PETITIONER: -------------------- KHAMARU LAILA, W/O. USMAN, SAGARA, NEAR CIVIL COURT, THALASSERY, KANNUR DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 4. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PAVAMANI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE, SC, KFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.38030 of 2007 B ------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner's father Sri.P.V.Mammu Haji availed a loan of Rs.17,81,000/- from the 4th respondent Corporation. The petitioner and her husband mortgaged the properties belonging to them as security for repayment. There was default in repayment of the loan. According to the petitioner, steps under the Revenue Recovery Act should have been taken against the defaulter alone. Steps are being enforced against the petitioner also. This is without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has also raised a contention that since amount now sought to be recovered is above Rs.10 lakhs, proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act are not maintainable, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Unique Butyle Tube Industries Private Ltd. v. U.P.Financial Corporation and others {2003(2) SCC 455}. W.P.(C).NO.38030/07 :: 2 :: 2. I heard learned learned counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel for the Financial Corporation also. 3. Insofar as the contention that the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act cannot be invoked, where the amount sought to be recovery is above Rs.10 lakhs, is concerned, the said contention has been considered and rejected by this court in Usman v. K.F.C. {2006(2) KLT 449} and Usman v. K.F.C. {2007(2) KLT 604}. Following the dictum laid down in the above two decisions, I reject the said contention of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner is entitled to say that the proceedings against her under the Revenue Recovery Act can either be initiated or proceeded, only after due notice to her. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 4 and 5 to proceed against the properties of the petitioner, if they so desire, for W.P.(C).NO.38030/07 :: 3 :: recovery of the amounts due from the petitioner's father as a principal debtor, only after due notice to the petitioner under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge