Kerala High Court
T.C.Raman vs The Director, Kerala State Nirmithi ... on 20 February, 2025
2025:KER:14496
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 20781 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
T.C.RAMAN, AGED 68 YEARS,
S/O.CHENNAN,SANDHYA SADANAM ,CHOORAKODU KARA, ERATH
VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, MANAKKALA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN-691551.
BY ADV SRI.SHIJU VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE NIRMITHI KENDRA
NIRMITHI HILLS, PTP NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695
038.
2 KERALAL STATE NIRMITHI KENDRA,
PTP NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 038.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., 689 645.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ERATH VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, MANAKKALA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 551.
BY ADV SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.E.G.GORDEN,SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.20781 of 2019 2 2025:KER:14496
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who was working with the Irrigation
Department in the Government of Kerala, states that he also
worked as a Regional Engineer of Kottarakkara Region of the
2nd respondent herein pursuant to Ext.P1 Order. The
petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 30.06.2006.
2. The petitioner contends that with respect to
the period when he was working with the 2 nd respondent, on
the basis of some alleged irregularities, an enquiry was
conducted leading to the finalisation of the proceedings by
which, a liability to the extent of Rs.1,44,717/- was fixed on
him and another individual. The petitioner states that, on the
basis of an enquiry report as above, Ext.P3 notice dated
24.03.2015 was issued by the 2nd respondent directing him to
make up the afore liability.
3. However, the petitioner further points out
that Ext.P4 dated 30.04.2019 was issued seeking to initiate
coercive steps against him with reference to the provisions of
W.P.(C)No.20781 of 2019 3 2025:KER:14496
the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968.
4. It is in the afore circumstances that the
captioned writ petition is filed essentially contending that the
initiation of coercive proceedings on 30.04.2019 under the
Revenue Recovery Act, as per Ext.P4 is barred by limitation,
with reference to the date of Ext.P3 - 24.03.2015.
5. I have heard Sri.Shiju Varghese, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Renju Mohan, the learned
counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents and Sri.E.G.Gorden,
the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 3 rd and 4th
respondents.
6. The challenge in this writ petition against
Ext.P4 is on the ground of limitation. According to the
petitioner, since the first notice at Ext.P3 was issued on
24.03.2015, the subsequent initiation of coercive steps
pursuant to Ext.P4 on 30.04.2019 is barred by limitation.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
rely on Raveendran Nair M.G. v. State of Kerala [2014
(4) KLT 625], Lt.Col.E.V. Krishnan v. State of Kerala
W.P.(C)No.20781 of 2019 4 2025:KER:14496
[2023 (4) KHC 274], Ajmal T.M. v. Deputy Tahsildar,
Ekm. [2024 (3) KHC 131] and Parama Sivan T. v.
Guruvayur Devaswom Board [2023 KHC 9163], to
contend that the alleged dues cannot be recovered on
account of the limitation as pointed out above.
8. I notice that during 2015 when Ext.P3 was
issued, there was no notification issued under the provisions
of Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act, by which, the
provisions of the Act was extended for realisation of the dues
to the 2nd respondent herein - an institution. It is only in 2016
the notification of Section 71 was issued and it is some time
thereafter, the Revenue Recovery proceedings came to be
initiated with reference to the provisions of Section 71 of the
Act.
9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the liability was originally fixed as per
Ext.P3 and hence, barred by limitation, with reference to the
provisions of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, and since the
period of three years under the afore Article has already
W.P.(C)No.20781 of 2019 5 2025:KER:14496
come to an end, Ext.P4 cannot be sustained. The provisions
of Article 112 of the Limitation Act deals with a situation
where the dues are payable to the Government. The learned
counsel for the petitioner, contended that the 2 nd respondent
is not "Government " and hence, the provisions of Article 112
would not apply.
11. The fact that the 2nd respondent is an
institution sponsored by the Government, is not in dispute. It
is only on that basis that subsequently, a notification under
Section 71 came to be issued, permitting the application of
the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of
the dues as if, it were "arrears payable to the Government".
But as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Raveendran
Nair (supra), the mere declaration under Section 71 of the
Revenue Recovery Act, does not change the nature of the
liability. The dues payable does not get the character of
"public revenue due on land" merely on account of the
declaration under Section 71.
W.P.(C)No.20781 of 2019 6 2025:KER:14496
Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is
entitled to succeed. Consequently, this writ petition would
stand allowed, quashing Ext.P4 issued by the 1st respondent
herein.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ANA
W.P.(C)No.20781 of 2019 7 2025:KER:14496
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20781/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
AD/2894/2007/KSNK DATED 10.7.2007.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.
6706/D3/2013 VIGILANCE DATED 28.1.2015
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.3.2015.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.
AD3/4771/2018/KSNK DATED 30.4.2019
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.6.2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL AD CARD DATED
6.7.2019
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO.507/18 DATED
25.07.2018 IN G.O.(P) NO.45/2018/RD DATED
18.07.2018.
