IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31175 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.T.SREEKUMAR,S/O.GOVINDA PILLA, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT THATTAMVILAKOM, NANNIYODE, PACHA.PO,NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR SRI.G.SURARSHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER KERALA STATE H.BOA REVENUE RECOVERY, KERALA STATE H.BOARD,NEDUMANGAD BRANCH OFFICE, REVENUE TOWER,NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,NEDUMANGAD BRANCH OFFIC E,REVENUE TOWER,NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,NEDUMANGAD BRANCH OFFIC E,REVENUE TOWER,NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. ADV. POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,SC.KSHB FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.31175 of 2010-V ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Deceased father of the petitioner late Sri.S.Govinda Pillai had availed a housing loan from the respondents during the year 2000, which ought to have been repaid in 114 equated monthly instalments of Rs.4,820/. According to the petitioner, default if any committed by his deceased father was not known to him or to his brother, and only when the revenue recovery steps were initiated they came to know about the default. Alleging that the coercive steps of recovery were pursued without issuing copies of the statement of accounts, the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion. Under Ext.P7 judgment, this court permitted the petitioner to clear the entire amounts due by availing benefit of the 'one time settlement scheme'. It was also clarified that payments if any made by the deceased father should be given proper credit. The respondents was directed to serve a copy of the statement W.P(C) No.31175 of 2010-V 2 of accounts to the petitioner, showing all payments made and also showing the outstanding liability to be cleared, as on 31.9.2010. The petitioner was directed to clear the outstanding liability through 'one time settlement scheme' on or before 30.9.2010. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not given proper statement of accounts inspite of the directions issued as above and inspite of repeated requests made in this regard. But subsequently Ext.P12 letter was issued conceding that there was one payment of monthly instalments effected by the deceased father. Therefore it is contended that the recovery steps now proceeded on, is on the basis of an erroneous calculation. The present writ petition is filed challenging the recovery steps on the above said premise. 3. When the writ petition came up for consideration, an interim stay was granted against further coercive steps, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The petitioner had already complied with the W.P(C) No.31175 of 2010-V 3 condition. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent dt.10.12.2010, it is conceded that, on the basis of a complaint detailed verification was conducted and it was detected that the deceased father of the petitioner had effected payments of four monthly instalments on various dates like 10.3.2010, 10.4.2010, 10.5.2010 and 8.6.2010. It is stated that, due to technical reasons related to computarisation of the accounts the remittance made as above was not given proper credit in the accounts when the initial requisition was made. Those remittance could be traced out only after a detailed verification. It is further stated that before computarisation, the receipts were issued on hand written basis and the carbon copies of such receipts available were used for making entries while effecting computarisation. In certain cases, such receipts does not bear the relevant loan number, name and other details and the omissions occurred only due to such situations. It is further stated that necessary corrections W.P(C) No.31175 of 2010-V 4 have already been in the account of the petitioner. 5. In the reply affidavit filed, the petitioner contended that, the statement regarding the payments already made is not true and correct and that the respondents are not even mentioning the details regarding the 4th payment, which according to them was traced out only through subsequent verification. Contention of the petitioner is that all the payments effected by the deceased father has not been given credit. It is also contended that, inspite of tracing out the payments already made, due credit on the appropriate dates of such payments was not given and the penal interest charged on amounts already paid during the year 2000, is unsustainable. 6. Considering the rival contentions, I notice that the respondents have failed in complying with the directions contained in Ext.P7 judgment in proper time. However, after filing of the present writ petition, they conceded about four payments effected by the deceased father of the petitioner. Eventhough the petitioner had raised dispute W.P(C) No.31175 of 2010-V 5 regarding correctness of the statement, there is no cogent evidence produced from the side of the petitioner to show that any other payments were effected either by the deceased father or by the petitioner. 7. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I do not find any reason to hold that the revenue recovery steps now initiated is unsustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner place reliance on various decisions of this Court to content that the revenue recovery steps could not be proceeded without conducting proper adjudication and fixation of the liability. I take notice that dictum laid in those cases pertains to recovery of unliquidated amounts, with respect to which there exist genuine disputes. In the case of recovery of the loan amount in question, it could not be said that the amount sought to be recovered is not discernible or the defaulted amount could not be termed as an unliquidated liability. Therefore on the factual matrix itself, I am not convinced that the recovery steps need be restrained based on the contention that no proper W.P(C) No.31175 of 2010-V 6 adjudication was done. 8. However, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents points out that a scheme formulated by the Government for 'one time settlement' of the loans availed from the respondent Board is in force till 30.6.2011. Under such circumstances, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondents seeking 'one time settlement' of the arrears. If any such approach is made, the respondents shall make computation of the amounts due, after giving credit to all payments made by the deceased father on respective due dates, and shall finalise the account. Intimation regarding the balance amount to be paid under the 'one time settlement scheme' shall be issued to the petitioner at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from today. It is left open to the petitioner to remit the amount due under the 'one time settlement scheme' before the dates stipulated. 9. In order to facilitate the petitioner to clear payments of the arrears through the one time settlement W.P(C) No.31175 of 2010-V 7 scheme, steps of recovery now being pursued shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 4 (four) months from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab