Kerala High Court
M/S Bava Realtors vs State Of Kerala on 6 September, 2024
WP(C) No.31573/2024 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
Friday, the 6th day of September 2024 / 15th Bhadra, 1946
WP(C) NO. 31573 OF 2024(V)
PETITIONER:
1. M/S BAVA REALTORS KILIYANKAL BUILDING, VALLATHOL JUNCTION
JN., KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
NAZARUDEEN, PIN - 682021
2. MR.NAZARUDEEN AGED 37 YEARS MANAGING PARTNER, M/S BAVA REALTORS,
KILIYANKAL BUILDING, VALLATHOL JUNCTION JN., KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM ,
PIN - 682021
3. BAVA K.M AGED 71 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED, KALLEPURATH HOUSE, PUTHIYA
ROAD, VADACODE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021
RESPONDENT:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695001
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL
STATION, ECHAMUKU, KUNNUMPURAM, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, , PIN - 682030
3. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES
LTD, JEW STREET, PADMA JUNCTION, SHENOYS, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682035
4. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD JEW STREET, PADMA JUNCTION,
SHENOYS, ERNAKULAM, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
PIN - 682035
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P2, Exbt P2(a)
and Exhibit P4 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending consideration of the
writ petition in the interest of justice.
This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
M/S LAL K.JOSEPH, P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR), T.A.LUXY, SURESH SUKUMAR,
ANZIL SALIM, SANJAY SELLEN, SONIA SHIBU, AKASH GEORGE, AAMINA RAFEEK,
Advocates for the petitioners, SRI. JUSTIN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO
R3 (B/O), SRI. ANIL KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R4 (B/O), the court passed
the following:
WP(C) No.31573/2024 2/6
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
===================
W.P.(C) No.31573 of 2024
---------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of September, 2024
ORDER
The petitioners were subscribers to a chitty run by the 4 th
respondent herein. Since the chitty was defaulted, proceedings
under the Revenue Recovery Act has been initiated by the 4 th
respondent through respondents 2 and 3 and the 3 rd
respondent has issued Ext.P2 revenue recovery notice. On
receipt of the said revenue recovery notice, Ext.P2 objection
under Section 34 (2) of the Revenue Recovery Act is filed by
the petitioners, pointing out that the coercive steps are being
taken even without carrying out an adjudication of the actual
liability, in a manner known to law. Even thereafter when the
proceedings were continued, the petitioners have filed the
captioned writ petition.
2. Sri.Lal K. Joseph, learned Counsel for the petitioners
essentially contends that the steps taken for realisation by
exercising the powers under the Revenue Recovery Act without
carrying out an adjudication, is without any justification. He
also points out that insofar as the petitioners have specifically
pointed out in Ext.P3 as regards the dispute with respect to the
amounts for which coercive steps are taken as well as the
interest component, there is a dispute within the purview of
Section 64(1) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982.
3. Learned Counsel relies on the judgment of this
Court in Corporation of Kozhikode v. Radha [2022 (4)
KLT 433] to point out that, without there being a proper
adjudication, the recourse to the provisions under the RR Act is
not proper.
4. On the other hand, Sri.Anil Kumar, learned Counsel
for the 4th respondent points out that insofar as this Court in
W.P.(C) No.35389 of 2023 has held that even on the face of
the provisions under the Chit Funds Act, the provisions under
the Revenue Recovery Act can be taken, the recovery
proceedings initiated is perfectly justified.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and the
connected records.
6. A perusal of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.35389 of
2023 makes it clear that this Court has held that the provisions
under the Chit Funds Act is not a bar for the initiation of the
proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. However, in
the case at hand, there is a specific contention raised to the
effect that there was no adjudication and therefore, the
provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act cannot be taken.
Secondly, there is a specific contention that insofar as there is
a dispute, the provisions under Section 64(1) of the Chit
Funds Act would apply.
7. However, it is noticed that these afore two
contentions were not considered by this Court in the judgment
in W.P.(C) No.35389 of 2023.
8. Therefore, prima facie, I am of the view that an
interim order is to be granted in the case at hand.
The writ petition is admitted.
Sri.Justin, learned Government Pleader takes notice for
R1 to R3. Sri.Anil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel takes
notice for R4.
Post on 30.09.2024.
There will be an interim stay as prayed for till then.
sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
Scl/
06-09-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31573/2024
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RRC NO.2024/2769/07 DATED
22.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
Exhibit P2(a) PETITIONER
THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RRC NO.2024/2769/07 DATED
22.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS TO
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 05.08.2024 OF WHICH ONE WAS
ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4
THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14/08/2024 ISSUED
UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT,1968 BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
06-09-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
