IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 4490 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THODUPUZHA TOWN SERVICE CO. BANK LTD. NO.I-233, ASWATHY MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, THODUPUZHA-685 584, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ANTONY JOSEPH, KUNCHERAKATT, THODUPUZHA EAST-685 585. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL SRI.JOSE MATHEW (KAVALAKALAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA MINI CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA-685 584. 3. NASEER, S/O. MULLA LABBA, AYAPURACKAL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O.-685 585. 4. NOORJAHAN NASEER, AYAPURACKAL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O.-685 585. 5. NASEEM NASEER, -DO- -DO- BY G.P.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C)No.4490 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a Service Co-operative Bank, is challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2 against respondents 3 to 5, pursuant to Ext.P4 notice issued under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 2. The petitioner Bank had advanced credit facility to respondents 3 to 5 on executing a registered deed of mortgage with respect to the property which is now being proceeded against. The mortgage was created during the year 2007. Contention of the petitioner is that, in view of the valid mortgage created, the recovery steps now initiated by the State Government against the said property is unsustainable. It is evident that, petitioner Bank had raised objections before the 2nd respondent through Ext.P5. But W.P.(C)No.4490 of 2011 -: 2 :- the 2nd respondent had rejected those objections through Ext.P6 observing that the State Government has got a first charge with respect to the public revenue due on land, which in this case is the arrears of the sales tax. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submits that the arrears of sales tax, which is now sought to be recovered through Ext.P4, had fallen due in the year 2001 onwards and that the mortgage in question was created only in the year 2007. Government Pleader points out that the settled legal position affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court is that the arrears of sales tax which is a public revenue due on land will be having a charge on the property as it is a 'crown debt' and such charge has got priority over any other liability even if it is created through any mortgage. Further, it is specifically pointed out that the mortgage in question was created only after the arrears has fallen due. 4. Considering the settled legal position, I am of the W.P.(C)No.4490 of 2011 -: 3 :- view that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, it is observed that if there is any excess receipts derived out of the revenue recovery proceedings, the petitioner Bank can raise claim before the 2nd respondent and such receipt shall not be disbursed to the defaulters without settling such claims. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Jvt