Kerala High Court
The Assistant Executive Engineer vs M.V Mahamood on 8 October, 2025
WA No.2155/2025 1
2025:KER:73638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
WA NO.2155 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.06.2025 IN
WP(C) NO.4615/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 5 & 6:
1 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
WW SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
KOCHI, PIN - 682005
2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PH DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682016
3 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PIN - 695001
BY ADV.SRI.JUSTINE JACOB
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2, 3, 4 & 7:
1 M.V.MAHAMOOD
S/O.IBRAHIM, CC54/118 STERLING ESTATE,
KUMARANSAN ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN - 682017
2 THE SPECIAL THAHASILDAR (RR)
KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
WA No.2155/2025 2
2025:KER:73638
3 VILLAGE OFFICER
EDAKOCHI VILLAGE, EDAKOCHI, PIN - 682002
4 V.GEORGE JOSEPH
S/O.JOSEPH RESIDING AT DREEMS, MYTHRIPADAM,
CROSS ROAD, THRIKAKARA, KOCHI, PIN - 682021
5 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI, R1
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.09.2025, THE COURT ON 08.10.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No.2155/2025 3
2025:KER:73638
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 08th day of October, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
17.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4615 of 2020.
Appellants were respondents 1, 5 and 6 in the W.P.(C). The 1st
Respondent was the petitioner in the W.P.(C).
2. The W.P.(C) was filed by 1st respondent, who is a
consumer of Kerala Water Authority (KWA) against whom Revenue
Recovery (RR) notice had been issued towards recovering the
arrears of water charges and outstanding dues. The Writ Petition
was filed inter alia contending that the RR proceedings initiated
were time-barred and hence are not maintainable. That during the
relevant period the premises were under his tenant viz., 4th
respondent and thereby the liability to clear off the dues fell upon
the tenant is also contended. The learned Single Judge allowed the
W.P.(C), inter alia holding that the requisition was barred by
limitation and the RR notice was quashed. Aggrieved by the same,
2025:KER:73638
the KWA has filed this Writ Appeal.
3. Heard Sri.Justine Jacob, Advocate for the appellant,
Sri.Johnson Manayani, Advocate for the 1st respondent and
Sri.K.P.Harish, Senior Government Pleader for the State.
4. The learned counsel appearing for KWA submitted that
the impugned judgment was erroneous and was fit to be set aside.
The conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the RR
proceedings initiated was barred by limitation is legally
unsustainable. It is submitted that Section 36 of the Kerala Water
Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986, deals with the recovery of taxes,
fees and other sums due. Invoking the said provision, the Kerala
Government has notified in the Gazette that water arrears can be
recovered through RR proceedings. Section 2(j) of the Kerala
Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'RR Act'), it is
submitted, deals with 'public revenue due on land', which means
land revenue charged on the land and includes all other taxes, fees
and cess on the land whether charged on land or not. All cesses or
other dues payable to the Government on account of water used for
purpose of irrigation also falls within the same. It is contended that
the arrears of water charges are thus a public revenue due on land
2025:KER:73638
and the limitation applicable is 30 years as per Article 112 of the
Limitation Act. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge had
failed to consider these aspects while disposing of the Writ Petition.
The conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the KWA
does not come under the definition of the State is termed incorrect
insofar as, the KWA is a continuation of the Public Health
Engineering Department (PHED) of the State and the employees of
the KWA are governed by the Kerala Service Rules and Kerala
State and Subordinate Service Rules. It is further contended that
the KWA is entirely under the control of the Kerala Government and
is administered by a Board in which the Additional Chief Secretary
of the State of Kerala is the Chairman. The Managing Director of the
KWA, it is submitted, is also appointed by the Government. The
KWA is fully funded by the Government and hence the conclusion
arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the KWA does not come
under the definition of the State is erroneous. The impugned
judgment is thus sought to be set aside.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent defended the judgment of the learned Single Judge and
submitted that the same does not require any interference. It is
2025:KER:73638
submitted that the RR proceeding initiated is time-barred and that
they are legally unsustainable. Ext.P4 disconnection advice is dated
19.06.2007. Ext.P5 letter demanding arrears of Rs.45,223/- is dated
31.07.2007. Ext.P6 demand notice under RR Act for an amount of
Rs.3,17,601/- is dated 03.02.2020. The limitation period prescribed
under the RR Act is 3 years from the date of the arrears becoming
due on land. Even going by the relevant requisition proceeding, the
same had been made far beyond the said limitation period of 3
years. The demands had been made years after the expiry of the
period of limitation. Ext.P6 RR proceeding is thus beyond the period
stipulated in law and is thus hopelessly time barred. The conclusion
arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the RR proceedings are
barred by limitation is thus valid and sustainable. Coming to the
factual aspects, it is pointed out that amounts claimed under
Exts.P4 and P5 are not payable by the 1st respondent. In view of
Ext.P3 judgment dated 09.09.2010 of this Court in R.P.No.153 of
2010, amounts due to the KWA ought to have been paid and
realised from the 4th respondent. It is contended that the bills had
been issued mechanically without verifying the said actual aspects
and the amounts claimed are imaginary, which cannot be supported
2025:KER:73638
by law. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in Mercy Hotels
(M/s.) and Others v. Kerala State Water Authority and Others 1
wherein it had been held that the period of limitation as regards the
recovery of dues towards Water Authority is concerned is as
provided in Article 113 of the Limitation Act which stipulates three
years from the date on which right to sue accrues.
6. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered
the contentions put forth. In State of Kerala v. Kalliyanikutty2, it
has been held that the revenue recovery proceedings cannot be
initiated for recovery of amounts which are time-barred. The Full
Bench of this Court in Raveendran Nair M.G. v. State of Kerala
and others3 and Perumbavoor Municipality v. Assistant
Engineer4 has held that by a declaration of the Government under
Section 71 of the RR Act, amounts so declared though could be
made recoverable under the Act, the nature of the debt would not
however get altered to public revenue due on land as defined in
Section 2(j) of the RR Act. In Ajmal v. Deputy Tahsildar5, it has
1. 2019 (4) KHC 127
2. 1999 (2) KLT 146 (SC)
3. 2014 (4) KHC 518 (FB)
4. 2015 (1) KLT 95 (FB)
5. 2024 (2) KLT 754
2025:KER:73638
been held that the benefit of a thirty-year period for recovering the
amounts due to the State under Article 112 of the Limitation Act
cannot be given to an authority constituted under a Statute as the
term "other authorities" is not included in Article 112 of the Limitation
Act. In Syndicate Bank Now 'Canara Bank' v. Kerala Water
Authority and others6 it has been held that the KWA is a statutory
body constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Water Supply
and Sewerage Act, 1986 and though Section 36 of the Act permits
the recovery of amounts due to the KWA as arrears of land revenue,
the same can only be a mode of recovery and if the claim is barred
by limitation, recovery proceedings cannot be continued under the
provisions of the RR Act. Thus, the law on the point is trite and
settled as laid down by precedents. In the light of the precedents
referred to above, the relevant requisition, cannot be termed as
arrears due on land and is barred by limitation. It thus follows that
no recovery could be initiated under the RR Act against the 1st
respondent/petitioner in the W.P.(C). Neither the requisitioning
authority nor the recovering authority had any jurisdiction in the
matter, and the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated beyond
6. Judgment dtd. 05.06.2024 in WP (C) No. 27942 of 2013
2025:KER:73638
the powers vested in the respondents. There is merit in the
contention that the same should be treated as non est in the eye of
the law.
7. We note that the learned Single Judge had correctly
appreciated and applied the law on the point and had allowed the
W.P. (C). We see no reason to interfere with the said finding.
Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
