Kerala High Court
K.Raghavan vs State Of Kerala on 10 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 352 OF 2014
PETITIONER:
K.RAGHAVAN
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR,KOYAKKODAN
VEETTIL,POOPARAMBA,ERUVESSY.P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV P.SHEEBA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 SECRETARY
IRIKKUR BLOCK PANCHAYATH,IRUKKUR.P.O,KANNUR
DISTRICT-670593.
3 SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
(REVENUE RECOVERY),TALIPARAMBA TALUK-670103.
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
ERUVESSY VILLAGE,ERUVESSY.P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT-670103.
R1,3 AND 4 - SRI.K.P.HARISH,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.352 of 2014 2
SHAJI P.CHALY, J.
===========================
WP(C)No.352 of 2014
===========================
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2021
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to
quash Ext.P1 communication dated 18.06.2013, by which the
petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.49,415/- alleged to
be due from the petitioner on account of the works carried out, of
which petitioner was the Convener and Ext.P3 demand notice
issued under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act
to recover the said amount along with interest and other charges.
According to the petitioner, he has carried out the work as
Convener of the Beneficiary Committee constituted by the
Panchayat and he had no personal interest in the matter. It is also
pointed out that the work was carried out as per an agreement
executed as early as on 15.02.1999 and it was on the basis of an
audit objection raised by the Government, recovery proceedings
are initiated by the Irikkur Block Panchayat against the petitioner.
2. The significant contention advanced in the writ petition is
that the recovery is barred as per Section 243 of the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act (in short, 'the Act'). The provisions of Section
243 of the Act read thus:-
"243. Limitation for recovery of dues. - (1) No
distraint shall be made, no suit shall be instituted
and no prosecution shall be commenced in respect
of any tax or other sum due to a Panchayat under
this Act or any rule or bye-law, or order made under
it after the expiration of a period of three years
from the date on which the distraint might first have
been made, a suit might first have been instituted
or the prosecution might first have been
commenced, as the case may be, in respect or such
tax or sum: 194[Provided that in the case of
assessment under sub-section (2) the above said
period of three years shall be computed from the
date on which destraint, suit or prosecution might
first have been made, instituted or commenced, as
the case may be, after making such assessment.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contrary to this
contained in this Act or the rules made there under,
where for any reason, a person liable to pay any tax
or fees leviable under this Act has escaped
assessment, the Secretary may at any time within
four years from the date on which such tax should
have been assessed, serve on him a notice
assessing the tax or fee due and demand the
payment within fifteen days from the date of
serving such notice and thereupon the provisions of
this Act and the rules made there under shall apply
as if the assessment of such tax or fee was made in
time. (3) Where any tax or other amount due to a
panchayat has been barred by limitation under sub-
section (1), due to the default of taking steps at the
appropriate time and it is found in a lawful enquiry
that it was lost due to the default of any officer or
officers, the amount so lost to the panchayat shall
be realised with twelve percent interest thereon
from such officer or officers".
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader Sri
K.P.Harish. Even though notice is served on the Irikkur Block
Panchayat Secretary, there is no appearance. The sole
question to be considered is whether recovery can be effected
by the Irikkur Block Panchayat, in view of the prohibition
contained under Section 243 of the Act.
4. On a reading and analysis of Section 243, it is
categoric and clear that no recovery can be effected after a
period of three years under the provisions of the Act on
account of any amounts due under the provisions of the Act.
Admittedly, the amount has fallen due on account of the
agreement executed in the year 1999. From Ext.P3 demand
notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, it is clear that the
requisition for recovery was made only in the year 2013 and it
bears the number RR/2013/5710/13. Section 69(2) of the Act
makes it ambly clear that the proceedings under the Revenue
Recovery Act starts only when the requisition is made.
Therefore, the requisition issued after a period of three years
to recover the amount from the petitioner cannot be sustained
under law in view of the peremptory prohibition contained
under Section 243 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner is
entitled to succeed on the said sole ground. Accordingly, the
writ petition would stand allowed and the proceedings
pertaining to Exts.P1 and P3 initiated by the Irikkur Block
Panchayat would stand quashed.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY,
JUDGE
lgk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 352/2014
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.D.184/2013 DATED
18.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3.7.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 21.10.2013
UNDER SEC.7 AND 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.5.2008 IN W.P.6586/2008
EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2013 IN W.P.29283/2013
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
