IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13602 of 2008(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- VIJAYAN K.K., S/O. DEVAKI AMMA, MADASSERY VALIYAVEETTIL, POIKKATTUSSERY, CHENGAMANAD P.O., VIA - ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, KALOOR, KOCHI - 17. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NOS. 16971 AND 36417/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.13602/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 26.2.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 27.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 15.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT 2.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUMBASSERY. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 13602, 16971 & 36417 OF 2008 ============================ Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T In all these writ petitions, the petitioners were defaulters to the Kerala Financial Corporation. 2. Recovery proceedings were initiated and during its pendency, the respective liabilities were settled by availing of the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme floated by the respondent Corporation. However, documents of title which were deposited have not been released for the reason that petitioners have not paid the revenue recovery charges that are payable under Rule 5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules. It is challenging these demands, these writ petitions have been filed. 3. In the judgments reported in Kadeeja Beevi v. Kerala Financial Corporation (1985 KLT 741), Village I.D. Centre v. Khadi & Village I.Board (1996(2) KLT S.N.44 Case No.49), Bhaskaran v. Sub Registrar (2005(3) KLT 150), W.A.No.2310/2008 and several other cases, this Court has taken the view that the liability of a defaulter to pay collection charges arises only when the dues have been recovered employing the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act. In these cases, no recovery has been effected by the Revenue Recovery authorities WPC 13602,16971 36417/08 :2 : to justify demand for collection charges at the rate as specified under the Revenue Recovery Rules. 4. However, the learned Government Pleader referring to the statements filed points out that steps were taken for selling the mortgaged properties by publishing advertisements and that it was at that stage, the liability was settled. According to him, the State having taken such steps incurring expenditure, is entitled to realise the collection charges in full, at the rate as specified in the Revenue Recovery Rules. 5. However, for the reason that the liability due to the KFC has not been recovered employing the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act, consistent with the principles laid down in the various judgments of this Court, I am inclined to think that the respondents are not entitled to recover the revenue recovery charges at the rate as specified. However, having regard to the fact that the expenses are being incurred, the authorities should, at the same time, be reimbursed the actual expenses that they have incurred. 6. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions. (1) That it will be open to the Tahsildar concerned to intimate the WPC 13602,16971 36417/08 :3 : KFC the actual expenses that they have incurred for initiating recovery proceedings against the respective petitioners and on intimation thereof, the respective petitioners shall remit the amount demanded to the KFC. (2) Once the amount is remitted as above, the KFC will release the documents deposited by the petitioners without any further delay. (3) It is directed that on the production of a copy of this judgment, intimation as above shall be given by the Tahsildar to the KFC within three weeks thereafter. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp