IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28274 of 2009(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.A.HASSAN HAJI, KAMBAKUDIYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKE VAZHAPPILLY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN, SMT.C.K.SHERIN, SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH, S.N.D.P SHOPPING COMPLEX, P.P.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, S.C, K.F.C. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.28274/2009-D: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 05/02/2007 IN W.P.(C).11195/2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FURNISHED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 07/04/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/04/2009 GIVEN BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 01/07/2009 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 07/07/2009 RECEIVED FROM THE R.1. BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 15/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DY. TAHSILDAR (R.R). RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 28274 of 2009 D ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner was a defaulter to the first respondent as a result, recovery proceedings were initiated against the mortgaged property situated in Survey No.926/7 of Vazhappilly desom in Muvattupuzha Taluk. While the proceedings were thus pending, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.11195/2006. It is stated that accordingly petitioner discharged the liability in instalments to the first respondent and the liability was discharged by 16.10.2008. However, title deeds of the property were not released and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition. 2. According to the learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent, after initiating steps under Sections 7, 34 and 49 of the Revenue Recovery Act, petitioner discharged the liability and, therefore, the petitioner is bound to pay collection charges at the rate of 5%. W.P.(C) No.28274/2009 : 2 : 3. Having heard the submission made by both sides, I am inclined to think that the liability of the petitioner can only be to pay 1% of the amount collected. This is because by SRO No.459/2008 dated 24.04.2008, Rule 5(3) of the Revenue Recovery Rules introduced which reads as under:- “5(3). Institutions except Government Departments accepting defaulted payments directly from the defaulter after initiating Revenue Recovery Proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (15 of 1968) and filing the certificate by the District Collector under sub-section (3) of section 69 of the said Act shall be liable to pay 1% of the amount so collected towards service charge for the initiation of Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the defaulter and to initiate the fact of such acceptance to the District Collector concerned at once.” 4. As is clear from the aforesaid provision of the Revenue Recovery Rules, once recovery proceedings are initiated and thereafter the liability is discharged by the W.P.(C) No.28274/2009 : 3 : defaulter, collection charges at the rate of 1% of the amount recovered need be paid. In this case, petitioner discharged the liability after revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and after the introduction of Rule 5(3) of the Rules. If that be so, on the payment of 1% of the amount due, the second respondent is bound to issue a clearance certificate entitling the first respondent to release the title deeds of the petitioner. 5. Therefore, writ petition is disposed of directing that in the event the petitioner pays 1% of the amount indicated as above, the second respondent will issue a clearance certificate and on the basis of which, the first respondent will release the title deeds deposited by the petitioner. It is also made clear that, the petitioner shall also produce No Objection Certificate from the District Industries Centre, in case, if any liability is due to them as well. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/27/10 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge