Abdul Kareem vs The District Collector
2024 Latest Caselaw 15201 Ker

Kerala High Court

Abdul Kareem vs The District Collector on 5 June, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 20127 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 58 YEARS
          S/O KOCHUMUHAMMED, ENCHUKUDY HOUSE,
          ERAMALLOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691.

          BY ADVS.
          K.R.PRATHISH
          P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN
          JOEL CHALAMANA


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030.

    2     THE TAHASILDAR
          KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK OFFICE,
          FOURTH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER,
          SH 16, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686666.

    3     VILLAGE OFFICER,
          ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE,
          CHAMMANADU, KODAMTHURUTH, PIN - 688537.

    4     KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (KERALA BANK)
          KANNUR TOWN BRANCH, TK-52/5657, BANK ROAD,
          KANNUR P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670001,
          REP BY ITS MANAGER.

          BY ADV.
          M.SASINDRAN, SC
          SMT.MABLE C.KURIAN, SR.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20127 OF 2023
                                    -2-

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner alleges that Ext.P1 notice

issued by the 2nd respondent under the provisions

of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act ('Act', for

short) is illegal for various reasons, including

that there is no adjudication of the amounts

mentioned therein; that the debt is time barred;

and finally, that the amounts cannot be

recovered because it construes a commercial loan

which is availed of by him from the 4 th

respondent - Bank, but which is not covered by

any notification under Section 71 of the 'Act'.

2. Sri.M.Sasindran - learned Standing

Counsel for the 4th respondent, in response to

the afore submissions of Sri.K.R.Prathish -

learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

that the objections of the petitioner are

totally untenable; and that all of them are

covered by the various judgments and WP(C) NO. 20127 OF 2023

declarations of this Court and that of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. He thus prayed that this

Writ Petition be dismissed.

3. Smt.Mable C.Kurian - learned Senior

Government Pleader, however, submitted that this

Writ Petition is not maintainable because, the

petitioner has already approached the 2nd

respondent with his objections, namely Ext.P2.

She, however, added that she does not have

instructions whether the same has been decided.

She added that, if this Court is so inclined,

the Tahsildar is willing to do so after hearing

both sides.

4. When I consider the afore submissions,

it is without doubt that the objections raised

by the petitioner in the Memorandum of this Writ

Petition are not ones that this Court can

consider on its merits, at least at the first

instance. Statutorily, the petitioner has a WP(C) NO. 20127 OF 2023

right to approach the 2nd respondent with

objections, which he appears to have done

through Ext.P2. As seen above, there is no

clarity as to whether Ext.P2 is still pending.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this

Writ Petition to the limited extent of directing

the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar, or such other

competent Authority, to take up Ext.P2

objections of the petitioner and dispose of the

same, after affording him and the 4 th respondent

an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating

in an appropriate order and necessary action

thereon, as expeditiously as is possible.

Needless to say, until such time as the

afore is done and the resultant order

communicated to the petitioner, all further

coercive recovery action shall stand deferred;

but can be taken forward thereafter, depending

upon such decision, from the stage at which it WP(C) NO. 20127 OF 2023

is available today, without having to obtain any

further orders from this Court.

If, on the contrary, Ext.P2 has already been

decided by the 2nd respondent, he shall ensure

that the resultant order is communicated to the

petitioner and the 4th respondent within a period

of two months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment; and until such time, the afore

directions will continue.

In order to obtain an expeditious compliance

of the afore directions, I direct the petitioner

to place a certified copy of this judgment,

along with a copy of this Writ Petition,

containing the exhibits, before the 2nd

respondent; and the time frame afore fixed will

commence from that date.

I, however, clarify that this Court has not

decided the question whether Ext.P2 is

maintainable before the 2nd respondent; and these WP(C) NO. 20127 OF 2023

are issues also to be decided by the said

Authority, particularly taking note of the

submissions of Sri.M.Sasindran that the

petitioner, for impelling the argument relating

to limitation, ought to have invoked Section 69

of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 20127 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20127/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 09.03.2023 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS LOAN ACCOUNT NO.

14605130000265 AN AMOUNT RS. 219723/-.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 12.06.2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS ALONG WITH RECEIPT