Kerala High Court
Vasu vs The Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue ... on 20 January, 2023
W.P.(C) No.22296 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 22296 OF 2013
PETITIONERS:
1 VASU
S/O.NARAYANAN, ELAVINAL PUTHENPURAYIL HOSUE, PALAKKUZHA
KARA AND VILLAGE, PALAKKUZHA POST.
2 T.K.PARAMESWARAN
S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY, THANASSERIL HOUSE,PALAKKUZHA KARA
AND VILLAGE, PALAKKUZHA POST.
3 C.G.NARAYANAN NAIR,
S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, CHERUSSERIL HOUSE, KARIMBANA
KARA,PALAKKUZHA VILLAGE, PALAKKUZHA POST.
4 SASI.V.R.,
S/O.RAMAN NAIR, VADAKKEKARAYIL HOUSE, PALAKKUZHA KARA
AND VILLAGE, PALAKKUZHA POST.
5 E.M.RAMESAN,
S/O.THANKAPPAN, ELAVINAL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,
PALAKKUZHA KARA AND VILLAGE, PALAKKUZHA POST.
6 C.P.PADMAKSHY,
W/O.VASU, ELAVINAL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PALAKKUZHA KARA
AND VILLAGE, PALAKKUZHA POST.
BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN & SRI.DOMSON J. VATTAKKUZHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)
TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661.
2 THE SECRETARY,
KERALA KHADI VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
SRI.JOBY JOSEPH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.22296 of 2013 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2023
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who are Director Board members
of the Indira Khadi and Village Industries Co-operative Society, which is an
establishment registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act, challenging Exhibits P1 and P2 recovery proceedings initiated under
sections 7 & 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the Society availed a loan from the
Khadi and Village Industries Board which fell in arrears; and towards the
realisation of the same, 7 cents of the property of the Society comprised in
Sy.No.386/1 of Palakuzha Village was attached and sold in auction on 17.8.2006
and the same was confirmed on 25.4.2007.
3. According to the petitioners, in the year 2013, they were served with
Exhibits P1 and P2 recovery notices. It is submitted that the petitioners have no
manner of personal liability on account of the loan availed by the Co-operative
society. It is further pointed out that the claim raised in Exhibits P1 and P2 are
barred under the law of limitation. That apart, it is stated that the amount due to
the Khadi and Village Industries Board is not a public revenue due on land and
therefore, the recovery proceedings cannot be initiated resorting to the provisions
of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968.
4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue
Recovery), Muvattupuzha - 1st respondent refuting the claims, demands and
allegations raised in the writ petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Domson J. Vattakuzhy,
learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Joby Joseph and perused the pleadings
and materials on record.
6. Even though a ground of limitation is raised, I do not think that may not
have much force, especially due to the fact that even according to the
petitioners, the loan availed by the Society was defaulted and consequently,
revenue recovery action was initiated in the year 2004 and the property of the
Society was sold in auction. It is against the balance due under the same loan
transaction; the present revenue recovery action is initiated under sections 7 and
34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. This means the requisition for
taking recovery action was given in the year 2004 under Section 69 of the Act
1968, consequent to which the proceedings started and, therefore, there cannot
be a question of limitation after that in terms of the statute.
7. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners
have not extended any personal guarantee against the loan availed by the
Society and therefore, recovery action initiated against the petitioners personally,
cannot be sustained under law. In my considered opinion, whether it is valid
ground that the personal guarantee was not offered by the petitioners against
the loan transaction, is a matter to be looked into by the statutory authority in
accordance with the law.
8. Therefore, the respondents are directed to ascertain as to whether any
personal guarantee is offered by the petitioners against the loan availed by the
Society in question and if personal guarantee is offered by the petitioners, then
the respondents would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in
accordance with law to realise the amount. However, if no personal guarantee is
offered by the petitioners, the recovery against the petitioners cannot be
sustained under law.
9. The decision as stated above shall be taken by the Deputy Tahsildar
(Revenue Recovery), Muvattupuzha - 1st respondent, at the earliest, and at any
rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement. Till
such time, the recovery action pursuant to Exhibits P1 and P2 will remain
suspended. The further action will depend on the decision so taken in accordance
with the observations and directions contained above.
smv Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY,
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22296/2013
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1.TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED
UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE RR ACT DATED
10/4/2013.
EXHIBIT P1.TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED
UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE RR ACT DATED
10/4/2013.
EXHIBIT P1.TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA
DATED 25/4/2007.
