IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6967 of 2009(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BENNY THOMAS, PARTNER, M/S.SIVASAILAM PLANTATION, POTTANKULAM, KAPPAD P.O KALAKETTY, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR (KOTTAYAM), COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), TALUK OFFICE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE-KANJIRAPPALLY. 4. BANK OF BARODA, KOTTAYAM BRANCH REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA, KOTTAYAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.6967 of 2009-M ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner availed a loan from the 4th respondent. There was default in repayment. The Bank initiated revenue recovery proceedings as well as filed O.A. An amount of Rs.1 lakh was paid through the revenue officers. It is stated that thereafter the Bank settled the entire claim by directly receiving Rs.4 lakhs. It is stated that apart from issuing demand notice the authority did not take any other steps and the matter is settled directly with the Bank. The prayers in the writ petition are to direct respondents 1 to 3 to withdraw the revenue recovery steps without insisting for the payment of collection charges and to declare that respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to recover any collection charges except for the amount actually collected by R1 to R3 in pursuance of Ext.P1 R.R.notice. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. There is no dispute that Rs.1 lakh was paid to WPC No. 6967/2009 -2- the revenue authorities and proportionate collection charges were also realised. Subsequent payment of Rs.4 lakhs is made directly to the Bank apparently pursuant to settlement. Apart from issuing notices under Section 7 and Section 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act no further steps have been taken is not in dispute. I, respectfully following the judgment of this court in Bhaskaran Vs. Sub Registrar (2005 (3) KLT 150) hold that no further amounts are liable to be paid by the petitioner towards collection charges. Learned Government Pleader also does not dispute that the department has received 1% of Rs.4 lakhs paid directly to the Bank even though it is prior to the amendment of Rule 5 (3). It is declared that respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to make any further demand on account of collection charges. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS