IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20124 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.A.JOSE, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 54, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, THOTTUVA KARA, KODANAD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 4. BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION S.N.D.P.BUILDING, P.P.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR. 5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R) KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION "FINANCE TOWER", KOCHI - 17, KALOOR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RAVIKUMARFOR R3-4 SRI.K.JAJU BABU,SC,KERALA FINANCIAL COR FOR R2 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 20124 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner had availed of a loan of Rs.10,80,000/- from the KFC. Default was committed and therefore recovery proceedings were initiated. Finally it would appear that the petitioner settled the liability by availing of the benefit of one time settlement. Still documents deposited were not released. It is with that grievance the writ petition is filed. 2. The 5th respondent has filed a statement. Paragraph 5 of the statement reads as under. “The 5th respondent initiated R.R proceedings against them and notices u/s. 7 and 34 were issued to them and were duly served. But the petitioner and his wife did not care to pay anything in spite of the above notices. Subsequently notice u/s. 36 also was issued to the defaulters and copies of the notices were affixed at the Sub Registrar's Office, Taluk Office, Village Office and Panchayat Office of the locality. Even after attachment there was no WP(c).No.20124/08 2 payment of arrears. In such circumstances the attached immovable property were put for sale on 20.7.2004 u/s.49(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Copies of sale notice were served on defaulters published in the Village Office, Taluk Office, Sub Registrar's Office, Panchayat Office etc. giving vide publicity. Moreover the 5th respondent had taken out paper publication also. But the sale could not be materialized for lack of bidders. Subsequently, sale was posted to 22.7.2007 and all the exercises done for selling the property on 27.10.2004 were repeated. At this time also sale could not be materialized. The 5th respondent was not ready and willing to sell out the property owned by the defaulters for meager amount. Therefore, the sale posted to 27.2.2005 was also postponed.” 3. From the above it is obvious that steps including advertisements for sale were taken under the Revenue Recovery Act. According to the respondents in view of the action they have taken under the Revenue Recovery Act, they are entitled to realize the collection charges payable under the Revenue Recovery Act and Rules. 4. Though the petitioner filed a reply affidavit, disputing the averments in the statement, still from the pleadings in this case, it is obvious that steps were initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act. It was while so the petitioner settled the WP(c).No.20124/08 3 liability by availing of the benefit of one time settlement scheme. Unless the amount in default is realized in the course of the revenue recovery proceedings, the defaulter is not liable to pay the collection charges. But having regard to the steps that they have taken for recovery under the Revenue Recovery Act, I am inclined to think that the petitioner should reimburse the expenses incurred by the authorities. This is all the more for the reason that from paragraph `3' of the statement filed it is evident that even advertisements were made. In such circumstances I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. 5. Within one week from the date of production of a copy of this judgment, the 5th respondent shall quantify the actual expenditure that they have incurred for the recovery action that was initiated against the petitioner. Once the amount is quantified as above and intimated, the petitioner shall immediately pay the same and on such payment the 5th respondent shall issue necessary clearance to the 4th WP(c).No.20124/08 4 respondent, in which case the 4th respondent shall release the documents of title deposited by the petitioner immediately thereafter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before respondents 3 ad 5 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.20124/08 5