IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 1824 of 2008(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- AURIC BROWN CRUMB RUBBERS(P) LTD., MOSQUE ROAD, MUTTOM, ALUVA. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. M.T.PAUL, MUTTATHOTTIL HOUSE, UNIVERSITY ROAD, KOCHI - 682022. BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO ITS GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA-683101. 4. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR FOR R1 TO R3, ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) & ADV. SRI. SAJI VARGHESE, SC, KSIDC FOR R4. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.1824/2008-P: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/01/2007 OF THE R.4. ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: A LETTER OF THE R.4. DTD. 28/03/2007 ADDRESSED TO THE R.3. DTD. 28/03/2007 SHOWING REMITTANCE OF RS.1,05,020/- AS RR CHARGES @ 7.5% OF 14,00,250/- OUT OF THE PAYMENT OF RS.15,05,270/- MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.4. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER OF R.4. DTD. 28/03/2007 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF RS.3,15,057/- TOWARDS REVENUE RECOVERY CHARGES, BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.3. DTD. 29/03/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/11/2007 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE R.3. WITH COPY TO R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 07/12/2007 OF THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 1824 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 21, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was a defaulter to the 4th respondent. Recovery proceedings were initiated and finally he was offered a one time settlement scheme by Ext.P1 which included a condition that the petitioner should pay the revenue recovery charges. It is stated by the petitioner that this was accepted by him and finally he paid a total sum of Rs.4,20,077/- towards the revenue recovery charges. By making payment of the dues along with the revenue recovery charges, their liability towards the 4th respondent was settled and the documents of title were also released. 2. Thereafter this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that since no amount was recovered by employing the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act, and as the liability was settled directly availing of the one time settlement scheme of the 3rd respondent, he ought WP(C) 1824 of 2008 2 not have been made liable to revenue recovery charges. It is on this basis the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to refund the revenue recovery charges realised from him along with interest at the rate of 12%. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Bhaskara v. Sub Registrar - reported in 2005 (3) KLT 150 in support of its proposition. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated that following the default that was committed by the petitioner, requisition under the Revenue Recovery Act was forwarded by the 4th respondent to the District Collector, Ernakulam. It is stated that accordingly the District Collector issued revenue recovery certificate under sec.69(3) of the Revenue Recovery Act and on that basis demand notice was issued to the petitioner under secs.7 and 34 of the Act. It is stated that payment was not made and as a result of which, the buildings and the machineries belonging to the petitioner were attached. WP(C) 1824 of 2008 3 4. It is stated that while further action under the Revenue Recovery Act was being taken, the 4th respondent informed that the petitioner had remitted a part of the dues and that the 4th respondent forwarded a cheque for Rs.1,05,020/- being the revenue recovery charges for the part payment made by the petitioner. It is stated that thereafter the 4th respondent informed that the party had remitted a total sum of Rs.56.01 lakhs in settlement of the liability and the 4th respondent forwarded another cheque for Rs.3,15,057/- towards the balance collection charges. It is stated by the 3rd respondent that it was only on account of the initiation of the revenue recovery proceedings that amount was remitted by the petitioner and therefore they are entitled to realise collection charges. It is their further case that the payment of collection charges was a voluntary payment. On these grounds, it is contended that the realisation of collection charges cannot be interfered by this Court. WP(C) 1824 of 2008 4 5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that it was under compelling circumstances the payment was made, I am not in a position to accept that plea. This is for the reason that the learned counsel for the 4th respondent has made available before me the minutes of the meeting held by the 4th respondent with the petitioner on 15.11.2006 which led to the issuance of Ext.P1 offer for one time settlement of the liability. The minutes of the meeting referred to above shows that the Managing Director of the 4th respondent had made it known to the petitioner that the petitioner will have to pay the revenue recovery charges. Accepting the aforesaid suggestion made by the Managing Director of the 4th respondent, it is seen that the petitioner had made an offer to the 4th respondent by their letter dated 1.12.2006 wherein it is stated that “as stated in the minutes, the company shall bear the revenue recovery charges and legal expenses incurred by the Corporation on that account”. It WP(C) 1824 of 2008 5 is seen that it was on this basis, the one time settlement of the liability was concluded wherein the petitioner had voluntarily undertaken to make the payment. 6. Thus, after having voluntarily accepted the liability and making payment and getting the benefit of the scheme, in my view, it is not open to the petitioner now to turn around and contend that realisation of revenue recovery charges from them was under compelling circumstances and hence erroneous. For this reason I am not inclined to interfere with the matter. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-