Kerala High Court
The Assistant Executive Engineer vs M/S.Peevees Projects Pvt.Ltd on 13 October, 2025
WA NO.101/2020 1
2025:KER:77819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 21ST ASWINA, 1947
WA NO. 101 OF 2020
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2019 IN WP(C)
NO.32926/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESONDENT NO.1:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER WORKS SUB DIVISION,
PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI 682 016.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JOHNY, SC, KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 18:
1 M/S.PEEVEES PROJECTS PVT.LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT CENTRE SQUARE, RAJAJI JUNCTION, MG
ROAD, KOCHI 682 035, REPRESENTED BY FINANCIAL
CONTROLLEER, MR. KISHORE KRISHNAN.
2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR)
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 016
3 SAIDALI CHITTA,
S/O.SAIDALI CHITTA, 40/7326, N. HOTEL PULLEPADY
JUNCTION, JEWS STREET, EAST END CHITTOOR ROAD,
KOCHI 682 035
4 MUHAMMED KOCHUNNY K.K,
S/O.K.K 40/6577/6997, APEX LANE
M.G ROAD,KOCHI 682 035
WA NO.101/2020 2
2025:KER:77819
5 BABAN GOVINDAN,
S/O.GOVINDAN, 40/6436/6851, KANAKATHARA LANE,
CONVENT ROAD, KANUTHU ROAD, KOCHI 682 031
6 ALIAS T,
S/O.T., 40/6465/6881, KANAKATHARA LANE,
CONVENT ROAD, KANUTHU ROAD, KOCHI 682 031
7 BAPPIE CHANDRAN,
S/O.CHANDRAN, 40/6549, M.G ROAD, KOCHI 682 016.
8 SREENIVASAN K.R,
S/O.K.R, 40/6443, KANAKATHARAPARAMBIL,
CONVENT ROAD, KANUTHU ROAD, KOCHI 682 031
9 VELAYUDHAN,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, 40/6542, KANAKATHARA LANE,
M.G ROAD, KOCHI 682 031
10 XAVIER P.C,
S/O.P.C., 40/6452, PALLIPARAMBU KANAKATHARA LANE,
CONVENT ROAD, KUNNATHU ROAD, KOCHI 682 031
11 NARAYANAN C.K,
S/O.CK , 40/6545, KANATHARAPARAMBU,
M.G ROAD, KOCHI 682 031
12 CHEMBAVATHY,
D/O.CHEMBAVATHY, 40/6540/6960
KANAKATHARA LANE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI 682 031
13 PARAMU RAMAN,
S/O.RAMAN, 40/6543, KAMUKUTHARA LANE,
M.G.ROAD, KOCHI 682 031
14 DEVAKI B,
D/o.B/40/6550/6970, KAMUKATHARA LANE,
M.G ROAD, KOCHI 682 031
15 SARASWATHU BAI R,
D/O.R. 40/6437/6852, KANAKATHARAPARAMBIL,
CONVENT ROAD, KANUTHU ROAD, KOCHI 682 031
WA NO.101/2020 3
2025:KER:77819
16 NARAYANAN R,
S/O.R 40/6439/6853, KANAKATHARAPARAMBIL,
CONVENT ROAD, KANUTHU ROAD, KOCHI 682 031
17 NARAYANI C.I,
D/O.C. 1140/6440/6855, KANAKATHARAPARAMBU,
CONVENT ROAD, KANUTHU ROAD, KOCHI 682 031
18 SANTHA RAMA PAI,
D/O.PAI, 40/6551, M.G ROAD, KOCHI 682 016
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNIL SHANKAR, R1
SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, R2
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.101/2020 4
2025:KER:77819
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
Heard C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2020 in Writ Appeal No.101 of
2020 for condonation of delay. The appeal has been filed with a
delay of 142 days. We have perused the reasons stated in the
accompanying affidavit and find sufficient cause has been made out
for condoning the delay. The delay of 142 days in filing the Writ
Appeal is thus condoned.
2. This Writ Appeal is filed by the Kerala Water Authority
(KWA) challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
15.07.2019 in W.P.(C) No.32926 of 2018. The 1st respondent was
the petitioner in the W.P.(C).
3. The W.P.(C) was filed by the 1st respondent,
challenging Exts.P1 to P16 (a) revenue recovery notices, inter alia,
contending that the same are time-barred and legally unsustainable.
The 1st respondent is the owner in possession of land which was
purchased from 65 various land owners. A mall by the name and
2025:KER:77819
style "Centre Square Mall' has been functioning from the said
property since 2013. The impugned RR notices were issued alleging
that water arrears to the said property were due and had not been
cleared. According to the 1 st respondent, the arrears were not paid,
as he did not know of them during the time of sale and the previous
title holders neither applied for disconnection nor remitted the
arrears due. The arrears for the period from 31.03.1999 to
01.07.2018 are stated to be Rs.33,112/- along with a fine. The W.P.
(C) was thus filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Declare that the coercive recovery proceedings initiated by
respondents 1 and 2 under Exts.P1, P1(a), P2, P2(a), P3,
P3(a), P4, P4(a), P5, P5(a), P6, P6(a), P7, P7(a), P8, P8(a),
P9, P9(a), P10, P10(a), P11, P11(a), P12, P12(a), P13, P13(a),
P14, P14(a), P15, P15(a), P16 and P16(a) revenue recovery
demand notices against the petitioner and its properties are
arbitrary and illegal, by the issue of an appropriate writ,
direction or order ;
(b) Call for the records leading to Exts.P1, P1(a), P2, P2(a), P3,
P3(a), P4, P4(a), P5, P5(a), P6, P6(a), P7, P7(a), P8, P8(a),
P9, P9(a), P10, P10(a), P11, P11(a), P12, P12(a), P13, P13(a),
P14, P14(A), P15, P15(a), P16 and P16(a) revenue recovery
demand notices and set aside the same by the issue of an
appropriate writ, direction or order ;
(c) Grant such other orders as may be deemed necessary in the
2025:KER:77819
facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of
justice."
4. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition,
inter alia holding that KWA is a statutory body functioning under the
Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986, and it does not have
the status of a 'State'. Thus, it was held that the KWA cannot take
advantage of Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and claim a
period of 30 years to recover the amounts due. The period available
to the KWA for recovery of any amounts due as per Article 113 of
the Limitation Act, is only 3 years. Since no steps had been taken by
the KWA to recover the amounts due under the Kerala Revenue
Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RR Act') within
the period of 3 years, as contemplated under Section 69(2) of the
RR Act and the recovery of amounts allegedly due relates to years
back and the requisition was made only in the year 2018, the Writ
Petition was allowed and the RR action initiated against the 1st
respondent was quashed. Aggrieved by the said judgment in the
W.P.(C), the KWA has filed this Writ Appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
2025:KER:77819
the respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader. As
regards service to respondent Nos.3 to 18, though service against
them have not been completed, the same would be of no legal
consequence in view of the nature of the orders to be rendered
herein which does not detrimentally impact them.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that a
conjoint reading of Section 36 of the Kerala Water Supply and
Sewerage Act, 1986 and Section 2(j) of RR Act implies that any sum
due to the authority on account of tax, fee, cost of water etc. shall be
recoverable as arrears of land revenue and such can be recovered
through appropriate revenue recovery proceedings. Thus, Article
112 of the Limitation Act applies, and a term of 30 years shall be
applicable to recover the arrears due. Further, it is argued that the
KWA comes under the definition of 'State' since it is a continuation
of the Public Health Engineering Department. The employees of
KWA are governed by KSR & KSSR and are under the control of the
Kerala Government. The KWA is controlled by a board, in which the
Additional Chief Secretary of the State of Kerala is the Chairman,
and the authority is fully funded by the Government as well. Hence,
2025:KER:77819
it is contended that the learned Single Judge erred in disregarding
these aspects and quashing the RR action without due
consideration. It is thus prayed that the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge be set aside.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent
submitted that the learned Single Judge has quashed the RR
notices after a detailed and correct appreciation of contentions put
forth by both sides. The same does not warrant any interference. It
is contended that the RR proceedings are hopelessly barred by
Limitation, and the prescribed period under the RR Act is only 3
years. The RR notices were issued only on 07.09.2018, which was
long after the date on which the arrears are said to be due viz.,
31.03.1999. The demands seen have been raised years after the
period of limitation mandated under law. Relying on the dictum in
State of Kerala v. Kalliyanikutty [1999 (2) KLT 146 (SC)], it is
contended that revenue recovery proceedings cannot be initiated for
recovery of amounts which are time-barred. It is further contended
that the amounts demanded, vide the relevant requisition, cannot be
termed as arrears due on land and hence no recovery could be
2025:KER:77819
initiated under the RR Act against the 1 st respondent. It is further
contended that neither the requisitioning authority nor the recovering
authority had any jurisdiction in the matter, and the revenue
recovery proceedings were initiated beyond the powers vested in
the respondents, and therefore, they are non est in the eyes of the
law. Reliance is also placed on the dictum laid down by the Full
Bench of this Court in Raveendran Nair M.G. v. State of Kerala &
others [2014 (4) KHC 518 (FB)] and Perumbavoor Municipality v.
Assistant Engineer [2015 (1) KLT 95 (FB)] and it is contended that
by a declaration by the Government under Section 71 of the RR Act,
amounts declared can be made recoverable under the Act, but the
nature of the debt would not get altered to public revenue due on
land as defined in Section 2(j) of the RR Act. Our attention is also
invited to the dictum laid down in Ajmal v. Deputy Tahsildar [2024
(2) KLT 754] and it is submitted that the benefit of thirty years 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. Based on the dictum laid down in Syndicate
2025:KER:77819
Bank Now 'Canara Bank' v. Kerala Water Authority and others
[Judgment dated 05.06.2024 in W.P.(C) No.27942 of 2013], it is
submitted by the learned counsel 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. Coming to the factual aspects, it was
submitted that not even a single bill was served upon the 1 st
respondent by KWA all these years and since the respective
buildings were demolished after the purchase and the construction
of a mall commenced in the said property from 2007, no question of
any supply of water to the 1st respondent arose. Further, it is
contended that the bills had been issued mechanically without
verifying the factual aspects, and the amounts claimed are
imaginary, which cannot be supported by any force of law. All these
contentions based on factual aspects are raised in addition to the
contention that the RR proceedings initiated at the instance of the
2025:KER:77819
KWA are barred by limitation and thus unsustainable in law.
8. We have heard both sides in detail and have
considered the respective contentions put forth. It is trite that any
recovery proceedings initiated towards realisation of outstanding
dues to the KWA have to be done within the three years stipulated
under the Limitation Act, 1963, since such a claim is one for
recovery of money. As regards the contention put forth by the KWA
based on Section 36 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act,
1986, we note that even if the said Section permits the recovery of
amounts due to the KWA as arrears of land revenue, the same can
only be a mode of recovery and as regards a bar by limitation,
recovery proceedings cannot be continued under the provisions of
the RR Act. As regards the recovery of any amount due as per
Article 113 of the Limitation Act, only a period of 3 years is provided
when the right to sue arises. If no steps are taken by the KWA to
recover the amounts under the RR Act within the said period of 3
years, as contemplated in Section 69(2) of the RR Act, then the
recovery would be clearly hit by the bar of limitation. In the cases at
hand, the requisitions made by the KWA are, by and large, barred
2025:KER:77819
by limitation. Nothing has been produced before us to prove the
contrary. We see no reason to interfere with the conclusions arrived
at by the learned Single Judge. It has been contended before us by
the counsel for the KWA that in this case, the recovery action
initiated had been well within the period of three years and to that
extent, such claims could not be termed as barred by limitation, and
hence the en bloc quashing of all recovery action initiated vide
Exts.P1 to P16 (a) by the learned Single Judge, without looking into
the time period, in the impugned judgment, was erroneous. We do
not find any specific pleading raised or ground taken in the said
respect in the Writ Appeal. We, however, note that what has been
declared as barred/ prohibited are the RR actions initiated for
recovering amounts that are beyond the period of limitation of three
years. It would be open to the KWA to initiate legally envisaged
steps for realising amounts, if any, that are legally due, provided that
the same are not hit by the bar of limitation. We hasten to add that
before proceeding so, it is incumbent on the KWA to base all such
demands/claims only on reasonable and factually confirmed and
validated supply, consumption and outstanding, rather than
2025:KER:77819
mechanically proceeding to issue claims/demands for fantastic
figures devoid of any factual basis and then invoking RR action for
realising the unsubstantiated amounts. Except for the above limited
clarification, we do not find any legally sustainable cause or reason
to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned
in the Writ Appeal.
The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
