IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 16280 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. R.ACHUTHAN NAIR, S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI, AGED 75. T.C.9/758, SREE NILAYAM, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. S.LALITHAVATHY AMMA, W/O.R.ACHUTHAN NAIR AGED 71, T.C.9/758, SREE NILAYAM, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (FINANCE), GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM-695 033. 3. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R2,3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16280/08 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.15965/06 DT 15.2.2006. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN RP NO.51 OF 2007 DT 22.1.2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 3.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 12.5.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DT 4.11.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 29.6.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 16280 OF 2008 K ==================== Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners were sureties to a loan availed of from the 3rd respondent. Default was committed and recovery steps were also initiated. It is also seen that the recovery steps were contested before this court and the petitioners were permitted to avail of the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme. As is seen from Ext.P3 certificate issued by the KFC, though revenue recovery was advised, payments were made directly to them and thereafter the whole liability was settled under the OTS Scheme. However, KFC has informed the petitioners that for the amount which were directly paid by the petitioners, since collection charges are not paid to the revenue recovery authorities, they are not issuing necessary clearance for release of the title deeds mortgaged by the petitioners. It is in these circumstances, writ petition has been filed. 2. As is evident from Ext.P3, the non payment of collection charges is in respect of the amounts which were directly paid by the petitioners and if that be so, it is clear that the demand for collection charges is in respect of the amount which is recovered otherwise than WPC 16280/08 :2 : through the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act. In such circumstances, the fact that a person cannot be made liable for collection charges is settled by the judgments of this court in Balan v. Tahsildar (2000(1) KLT 746) and a Division Bench Judgment in Bhaskaran v. Sub Registrar (2005(3) KLT 150). 3. In these cases, since demand of collection charges is in respect of amounts which were directly realised by the KFC and not through the machinery of the Revenue Recovery authorities, petitioners cannot be made liable for payment of collection charges. 4. Therefore, there will be a direction to the KFC to return the title deeds and other documents deposited by the petitioners without insisting on the payment of collection charges. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp