IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 17152 of 2008(P) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.C. PRASAD, MANAGING PARTNER, ATHIRA PARK HOTEL, RESIDING AT KRISHNA BHAVAN, P.D. ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KALOOR, KOCHI. 3. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, FINANCE TOWERS, KALOOR, KOCHI. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA ADV. SRI. M.M. SAYED MOHAMMED, SC, KFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 17152 OF 2008 - P ==================== Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he has defaulted payments to the 3rd respondent and for realising the amount due. Recovery proceedings were initiated. While the proceedings were pending, the 3rd respondent announced a One Time Settlement Scheme and the petitioner's request for extending the benefit of scheme was accepted by the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, terms for settlement were informed to the petitioner and the petitioner paid the entire amount due. However, for non payment of the collection charges due under the Revenue Recovery Act, the 2nd respondent is not issuing an NOC in order to enable the 3rd respondent to release the documents of title deposited by the petitioner. When the petitioner made a request to the 3rd respondent for releasing the title deeds, he was informed that it was because of the non issuance of NOC they could not release the title deeds. It is in such circumstances, writ petition has been filed. 2. It is true that as the petitioner was a defaulter, recovery proceedings were initiated, but then it was otherwise than in the course of WPC No.17152/08 : 2 : recovery proceedings that the liability was settled. In such circumstances, in view of the judgment rendered by this court in Bhaskaran v. Sub Registrar (2005(3) KLT 150) , collection charges cannot be realised. 3. Since the petitioner has settled the liability availing of the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme, collection charges is not payable and the insistence of the 2nd respondent for payment of the collection charges for issuing NOC is illegal. For this reason, I direct the 3rd respondent to release the title deeds deposited by the petitioner without insisting on an NOC from the 2nd respondent. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp