IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 14850 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.PARAMESWARA SHARMA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.SOUTH INDIAN CYLINDERS (P) LTD., NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKKODE (PO), PALAKKAD-678 621, SASTHA FLAMES, ERUMELI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY THAHASILDAR (RR), KFC, BRANCH OFFICE, THRISSUR. 3. THE DEPUTY THAHASILDAR (RR), KFC, BRANCH OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DEPUTY THAHASILDAR (RR), KFC, BRANCH OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 5. THE THAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), MALLAPILLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 6. THE CHIEF MANAGER, THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PALAKKAD BRANCH. ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU,SC,KERALA FINANCIAL COR FOR R6 GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).14850/2009 ....................... Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.B.Sreekumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Financial Corporation Mr.Jaju Babu, and learned Government Pleader. 2. Petitioner, who is a physically handicapped person availed a loan from the KFC. There was default in the repayment of the loan. Ultimately recovery was certified under the Revenue Recovery Act. Thereafter, petitioner closed the loan by availing the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme. He applied for release of the documents of title which have not been done and hence the writ petition. 3. The dispute relates to the collection charges demanded by the Revenue Department. Learned counsel for the KFC placed before me a copy of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.2502/2007 wherein, affirming an W.P.(C).14850/09 2 earlier judgment passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Bhaskaran v. Sub Registrar (2005 (3) KLT 150), the Division Bench also held that the KFC cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay the recovery charges. 4. Rule 5(3) of the Revenue Recovery Rules have been recently amended. The learned Judge in Bhaskaran construed the rules as then existing which provided for recovery charges at the rate of 5%. On amendment, recovery charges is fixed at the rate of 1% of the collected amount. The present levy cannot be construed as so unfair as to again warrant interference by this Court. Though the steps for recovery in the instant case have been taken prior to the amendment of Rule 5(3) of the Rules, since the provision is ameliorative in character and is also intended to confer a benefit on persons who proceed to pay the amount which is sought to be recovered from them as arrears of public revenue, I am of the view that the benefit should also be extended to those persons, from whom recovery charges are sought to be realised on the date on which the W.P.(C).14850/09 3 amendment came into force. In these circumstances, it is declared that if the petitioner pays recovery charges as per Rule 5(3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules as they have been amended, ie, at the rate of 1% of the amount collected, then the said remittance shall be treated as due remittance towards the recovery charges demanded of the petitioner and facts shall be so intimated to the District Collector by the revenue officials. There upon, on receipt of due intimation, the documents of title deposited by the petitioner shall be released to him. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs