IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 11557 of 2001(A) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. M.C. TOMY, MULANKOTHARA HOUSE, PANATHOOR P.O., PANATHADY VILLAGE, HOSDURG, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 2. M.C. THANKACHAN, MULANKOTHARA HOUSE, -DO- -DO- 3. M.C. BABU, MULANKOTHARA HOUSE, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, HOSDURGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER, KANHANGAD BRANCH OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGODE DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. SMITHA SUKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 18193 OF 2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 11557 of 2001 ORDERS ON C.M.P.NOS. 318 OF 2003 & 18557 OF 2003 IN O.P.NO.11557 OF 2001 CLOSED. 24.3.2009. SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE, APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF NOTICE NO.E2.801/B/2000-2001 DTD.9.3.2001 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY R1. EXT.P2: COPY OF NOTICE NO.E2.807/B/2000-2001 IPR 41/2000-2001 DTD. 9.3.2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF NOTICE NO.E2.800/B/2000-2001 IPR 36/2000-2001 DTD. 9.3.2001 ISSUED BY R1 TO 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD 19.3.2001 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE R1. EXT.P5: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD 20.3.2001 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE R2. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.Nos.11557 OF 2001 & W.P.(C)NO.18193 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners in these original petitions are the same. They are challenging revenue recovery proceedings initiated on behalf of the 2nd respondent Bank for recovery of agricultural loans due from them. The liability to pay is not disputed. Their main contention is that for recovery of the particular loan amounts, revenue recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act cannot be invoked. Their contention is that as per the notification issued under Section 71 of the Act, the revenue recovery proceedings are applicable to loan amounts due to the 2nd respondent bank only if the loan is issued under development schemes and not agricultural loans. This is disputed by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. According to him, by virtue of S.R.O.No.797/79, revenue recovery proceedings can be initiated for the purpose of recovery of loan advanced for agricultural purposes. 2. I have gone through S.R.O.No.797/79. As per the O.P.no.11557/01 & Con.case 2 same, the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act has been made applicable for recovery of amounts from any person to any bank on account of any loan advanced to such person by that bank for agriculture or agricultural purposes. The word 'agriculture' is defined therein as follows: “'agriculture' or 'agricultural purposes' shall include making land fit for cultivation, cultivation of land, improvement of land including development of sources of irrigation, raising and harvesting of crops; horticulture, forestry, planting and farming, cattle breeding, animal husbandry, dairy farming, poultry farming, Pisciculture including Marine Fisheries and schemes under Integrated Rural Development Programme, Different Rate of Interest Scheme and self employment, apiculture, sericulture, piggery and such other activities as are generally carried on by agriculturists, diary farmers, cattle breeders, poultry farmers and other categories of persons engaged in similar activities including marketing of agricultural products, their storage and transport and the acquisition of implements and machinery, and in connection with any such activity”. Admittedly, the petitioners have availed of loan for the purpose of rubber cultivation. That being so, the issue is squarely covered by the said notification. Therefore, I do not find any merit in these two original petitions. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. However, I O.P.no.11557/01 & Con.case 3 record the submission made by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the 1st petitioner has paid off the entire amounts due from him. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd