Leelamani.C.S vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 4100 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
     FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 34791 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:

    1     LEELAMANI.C.S.,W/O LATE SRI.P.P RAJAMONI, AGED 76
          YEARS, RESIDING AT BINU VIHAR, KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O,
          CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA- 688 529.
    2     BINU.R.,
          S/O.LATE SRI.P.P.RAJAMANI, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT
          BINU VIHAR, KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-
          688 529.
    3     BINI.R.,
          D/O.SRI.P.P.RAJAMANI, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT
          ANEKKATTU, CHARAMANGALAM, MUHAMMA P.O., CHERTHALA, 688
          525.
          BY ADVS.
          C.R.SANISH
          SRI.KARTHIK S. ACHARYA


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM- 695 001.
    2     THE TAHSILDAR,
          TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 524.
    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          KADAKKARAPPALLY VILLAGE, KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O.,
          CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 529.
    4     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          THANNEERMUKKOM SOUTH VILLAGE, MUHAMMA P.O., CHERTHALA,
          ALAPPUZHA-688 525.
    5     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA- 688 001.

          BY SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 34791 OF 2018


                                      -2-



                              JUDGMENT

The 1st petitioner is a senior citizen and widow. The 2 nd and 3rd

petitioners are son and daughter of the 1st petitioner respectively.

According to the petitioners, they received Exts.P1 and P2 notices

issued under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act,

1968. The case projected by the petitioners is that, petitioners are not

indebted to the respondents in any manner so as to proceed against

the petitioners invoking provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery

Act, 1968.

2. A counter affidavit is filed by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office,

Cherthala - the 2nd respondent - wherein it is contended as follows:

"Thereafter as per the requisition of the Deputy Collector (General), O/o District Collector, Alappuzha, the District Collector, Alappuzha vide RRC No.2018/1607/04 dated 14.02.2018, authorized Tahsildar, Cherthala through Revenue Recovery Certificate. RRC/2018/1607/04 dated 07.03.2018 to realize the same amount of Rs.10080/- from Smt. Leelamoni W/o Rajamoni, WP(C) NO. 34791 OF 2018

Binu Vihar, Kadakkarappally, Smt. Bini R, D/o P.P.Rajamony, Anekkattu, Muhamma, Thanneermukkom Thekku Village and Sri. Binu R., S/o P.P.Rajamoni, Binu Vihar, Kadakkarappally Village who are the legal heirs of the above said Late P.P.Rajamoni, towards the loss sustained to Government dues. On receipt of the RRC 2018/1607/04 dated 07.03.2018 Tahsildar, Cherthala initiated RR proceedings and Demand Notices under Section 7 & 34 issued and served through the Village Officer, Kadakkarappally to Smt. Leelamoni and Sri. Binu and through Village Officer, Thanneermukkom Thekku To Smt. Bini R. These RR steps proceeded against the legal heirs of Late P.P.Rajamoni, are in continuation of the RR action taken against P.P.Rajamoni in connection with loss sustained to Government during the assessment of building tax of Padmanabha Memorial Hospital building in Kanjikuzhy Village.

The defaulters submitted a complaint letter dated 07.08.2018 before Tahsildar, Cherthala about the RR proceedings taken against them. A reply has given to the defaulters fro the same describing above mentioned details. The entire staff of Taluk Office, Cherthala was fully engaged in flood relief duties. So it caused more than one month delay in WP(C) NO. 34791 OF 2018

giving a reply.

It is true that a letter addressed to the Tahsildar, Cherthala received in their office on 14.08.2018 enquiring about the circumstances under which the Notice issued under RR Act. Reply was given to them only on 31.10.2018 as the entire staff of the office was engaged flood related works. The RR steps taken under Section 34 of the RR Act 1968. As per the existing orders the tax receipt was issued after entering the Revenue Recovery proceedings, as the defaulted amount has to be realized as dues on land. Since the defaulters in RRC/2018/1607/04 are legal heirs of Late P.P.Rajamoni who was the defaulter in RRC No.B3- 2014/23080/4 dated 31.05.14, the RR proceedings started against them. Since the petitioner are the legal heirs of the Late P.P.Rajamoni, they are liable to remit the defaulted amount as per the existing rules. The Revenue Recovery steps taken against the defaulters under RR Act 1968 are legal and valid."

3. Therefore, according to the respondents, the action initiated

under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, is justified.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri.Sanish WP(C) NO. 34791 OF 2018

C.R., and the learned Government Pleader Sri. Rajeev Jyothish

George, and perused the pleadings and material on record.

5. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioners is that,

while the 1st petitioner's husband was in service, no action was

initiated and therefore, the recovery action without taking any action

against the 1st petitioner's husband while in service is illegal and

arbitrary. It is an admitted fact that the 1st petitioner's husband retired

from service in the year 1989. Going by the provisions of Part III, Rule

3, Ruling No.3 of the Kerala Service Rules, if a retired employee is to

be proceeded with for any recovery, the action should have been

initiated while the employee was in service. There is no case for the

respondents that any action was initiated while the 1 st petitioner's

husband was in service. In that view of the matter, I am of the

considered opinion that recovery action initiated after more than 20

years against the legal heirs of the retired employee cannot be

sustained under law, being without sanction provided under Part III,

Rule 3 Ruling No.3 of the Kerala Service Rules. In that view of the

matter, Exts.P1 and P2 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and WP(C) NO. 34791 OF 2018

illegality. Accordingly, Exts.P1 and P2 are quashed.

The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

uu 31.03.2023 WP(C) NO. 34791 OF 2018

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34791/2018

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NUMBER RRC 2018/1607/04, FORM 1 DATED 18.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN FORM 10 DATED 11.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07.08.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.