IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 22924 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.ANIL KUMAR, S/O.M.GOVINDAN, CHANDRATHARA P.O. AZHIKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KANNUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DIVISION, KANNUR - 17. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. REVENUE DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).22924/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was a licensee for collecting gate collection charges and wharfage landing and berthing charges in Mappilabay Fishing Harbour. Ext.P1 agreement was executed in this regard on 5.6.2003. The agreement contemplates handing over of site and electrical equipments contemporaneous to the execution of the agreement. According to the petitioner, the site and the electrical equipments were actually handed over only in 2005. But in the meanwhile, the electricity charges for the period during 2003-05 amounting to Rs.1,41,796/- came to be paid by the Department and thereafter, they sought reimbursement of the said charges from the petitioner. Petitioner took up a contention that he is not liable to pay the electricity charges till the site and electrical equipments were handed over to him. Reference is made in this regard to Exts.P2 and P5 which, according to the petitioner, indicate the delay in handing over the site to the licensee. W.P.(C).22924/2008 2 2. When Revenue Recovery steps were taken, petitioner approached the Land Revenue Commissioner in the first instance, with a Revision Petition, which was disposed of under Ext.P3 order requiring the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, on the premise that the Revisional Authority under the Revenue Recovery Act would only be concerned with the propriety of the procedure to be followed under the Act and not the existence of the liability, which is the subject matter of the requisition under the Revenue Recovery Act. Same view has been affirmed by the Government in Ext.P9 order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The relationship between the petitioner and the Department is contractual. If there has been breach on the part of the Government in handing over the site and electrical equipments to the licensee, then obviously the petitioner is entitled to either resist the plea for recovery of any amount from the petitioner which he is not otherwise liable to pay or claim damages, as the case W.P.(C).22924/2008 3 may be. What is required in the circumstances, is an adjudication on the question of breach of contract and quantification of damages if any. The existence of the basic liability is not a matter for determination by the authorities under the Revenue Recovery Act. In my view, the proper forum for the petitioner is the Civil Court itself. 4. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance the enforcement of any recovery proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of any balance amount under Ext.P1 agreement, for a period of six months from today. I take note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- towards the demand made by the Department pursuant to Ext.P1. It is open to the petitioner to move the Civil Court and seek appropriate orders in the meanwhile. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs