IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1179 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, SMITHA NIVAS, MALIBHAGAM, CHAVARA SOUTH, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.AFSAL KHAN SRI.I.ANWAR HUSSAIN SRI. V.A.SHAJI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPALLY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 1179 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 revenue recovery proceedings, initiated by the respondents placing reliance on Ext.P3 judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C)No.10964 of 2007 filed by him, joining hands with another person earlier, challenging the similar steps taken by the respondents under the Revenue Recovery Act, wherein a specific observation has been made in paragraph No.4 that the Government could not have turned the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act against the petitioners for realization of the amount under a decree passed in favour of somebody else, which was a liability fixed jointly and severally on the part of the Government as well. 2. The learned Government Pleader, referring to the sequence of events, submits that a person by name W.P.(C) No. 1179 OF 2010 2 K.K.Balakrishnan had filed a civil suit against the Government and also the petitioner herein, who were arrayed as the defendants No.1 and 4 respectively in O.S.No. 228 of 1995, before the Addl. Sub Court, Kollam, wherein Ext. P1 judgment was passed decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff, casting the liability upon the Government as well as the present petitioner, jointly and severally. The verdict passed by the trial court, however was subjected to challenge by filing R.F.A.No.460 of 2003, wherein interference was declined and the decree was confirmed as per Ext.P2. Since the liability became final, the Government proceeded to collect 1/4th of the said liability being the proportionate extent from the petitioner, by resorting to revenue recovery proceedings, which were challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No. 10964 of 2007, leading to Ext.P3 verdict. 3. As obvious from Ext.P3, this Court specifically held that the amount due under Ext.P1 judgment/decree or any portion thereof will not constitute 'public revenue due on land', as defined under Section 2(j) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, so as to W.P.(C) No. 1179 OF 2010 3 enable the Government to resort to the recovery proceedings making use of the machinery under the said 'Act'. It was for this reason that the revenue recovery proceedings initiated at that stage were intercepted by this Court, however making it clear that once the Government discharged the liability under the decree, the amount could be got recovered by resorting to appropriate steps against the petitioner, in accordance with law. 4. The observation in the above verdict and the relevant provisions make it clear that the respondent Government, having satisfied the liability under the decree, is very much entitled to get the due amount recovered from the petitioner. In other words, at the time of passing Ext.P3, the petitioner was not indebted to the Government and no amount was due from him to the Government, whereas after satisfying the liability by the Government to the decree holder by virtue of joint and several liability created under the judgment and decree and also in view of the observation made by this Court in Ext.P3, the petitioner became a debtor to the Government to the extent as specified . This being the position, such debt can very well be W.P.(C) No. 1179 OF 2010 4 recovered resorting to the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act and there is absolutely nothing wrong in having issued Ext.P4 at this stage and the idea and understanding of the petitioner to the contrary is wrong and misconceived. The challenge raised in the Writ Petition fails and interference is declined. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk