Kesavan v. District Collector Palghat — 1974 DIGILAW 255 (KER)

JUDGMENT K.K. Narendran, J. 1. The petitioner in this Original Petition was a toddy shop contractor during the years 1970-71 and 1971-72. The petitioner belongs to the Palghat Revenue District and the properties of the petitioner are also situated in the above district. His grievance is against the revenue recovery proceedings initiated for the realisation of certain amounts due from him by way of contributions under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 and the scheme framed under the above Act. 2. When the petitioner was informed of the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against him for the recovery of Rs. 7,747 the petitioner filed Ext. P-1 representation before the 1st respondent-District Collector, Palghat stating that there are some discrepancies in the computation of the amount and he will remit the correct amount due. The 1st respondent by Ext. P-2 letter dated 4th October 1973 informed the petitioner that revenue recovery proceedings will be stayed if the petitioner remits 50 per cent of the amount due on or before 17th October 1973 and the balance amount in three equal monthly instalments. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext. P-3 representation before the Minister for Revenue and the Government by Ext. P-4 letter dated 15th October 1973 informed the petitioner that the revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner will be stayed for three months. Subsequently, he received a communication from the Government that Ext. P-4 stay order dated 15th October 1973 has been cancelled, that the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the realisation of the sum of Rs. 7,747 will be continued and that the movable properties of the petitioner will be attached. It is then that the petitioner approached his court by this Original Petition. 3. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner in the Original Petition is that revenue recovery proceedings cannot be taken against him for the realisation of the amount due from him. For the arrears due under the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1969, the 1st respondent cannot initiate revenue recovery proceedings without obtaining a requisition from the Chief Welfare Fund Inspector. Counsel for the petitioner also raised a contention that without a certificate issued by the 1st respondent the revenue recovery proceedings cannot be taken and, in this case, the 1st respondent has not issued a certificate under section 69 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. 4. Counsel for the petitioner also raised a contention that without a certificate issued by the 1st respondent the revenue recovery proceedings cannot be taken and, in this case, the 1st respondent has not issued a certificate under section 69 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Chittur Taluk, it is admitted that the arrears in question are arrears of contribution under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 and the scheme framed thereunder. It is further stated that the Chief Welfare Fund Inspector, Trivandrum issued necessary certificates to the District Collector. Trivandrum and the District Collector, Trivandrum issued a certificate under section 69 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 and forwarded the same to the 1st respondent. It is thereupon that the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to take further proceedings against the petitioner for the realisation of the amount covered by the certificate. The 2nd respondent issued a demand notice under the Revenue Recovery Act to remit the arrears covered by the certificate. The averments in para 6 of the Original Petition are denied in the counter-affidavit and it is stated that no attachment of the movable properties belonging to the petitioner has been effected and only a demand notice was issued to him. It is also stated in the above counter-affidavit that the petitioner is residing within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent and that the properties belonging to the petitioner are also situated in the Chittur Taluk in Palghat District. It is clear from the averments in para 6 that the 1st respondent has not issued any certificate in respect of the Revenue Recovery Proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 5. The question is whether without issuing a certificate the 1st respondent has any jurisdiction to initiate Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the petitioner. Section 9 of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 reads: "Mode of recovery of moneys due from employers Any amount due from the employer in pursuance of the provisions of this Act or the scheme may, if the amount is in arrear, be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue,"� Section 78 of the Kerala Toddy, Workers Welfare Fund Scheme, 1969 runs as follows: "Recovery of arrears. If any amount due from an employer as per the scheme is in arrears, the Chief Welfare Fund Inspector after due enquiry shall ascertain the amount of arrears and shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector of the district in which the establishment and the properties of the employer are situated, and the Collector on receipt of this certificate shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as arrears of land revenue." Section 69 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 lays down the procedure for recovery of public revenue due on land when the defaulter or his surety resides outside the district and for the recovery of dues other than public revenue due on land. Section 69 reads: "(1) When public revenue due on land is in arrear and the defaulter or his surety resides or holds property outside the district wherein default has been made, the Collector of the district in which the arrear arose, shall sign a certificate in the prescribed form specifying therein the amount of the demand, the name of the defaulter, and such other particulars as may be necessary for the identification of the defaulter or his surety or both and forward the certificate to the Collector of the district in which the defaulter or his surety resides or holds property. (2) When any amount, other than public revenue due on land, which is recoverable under this Act, is due, the officer charged with its realisation may send to the Collector of the district in which the demand arose a written requisition in the prescribed form, duly verified and certified by him. (3) On receipt of the requisition under sub-section (2), the District Collector, if he is satisfied that the demand is recoverable under this Act, may sign a certificate to that effect in the prescribed form specifying therein the amount of the demand, the account on which it is due, the name of the defaulter, and such other particulars as may be necessary for his identification, and shall cause the certificate to be filed in his office. (4) If the defaulter resides or owns property in any other district, the District Collector shall forward a copy of the certificate referred to in sub-section (3) to the Collector of such other district. (4) If the defaulter resides or owns property in any other district, the District Collector shall forward a copy of the certificate referred to in sub-section (3) to the Collector of such other district. (5) When a certificate is received under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4), the Collector of the district shall proceed against the defaulter and his surety and his or their property in the same manner as if the default, had been made in his own district. Every certificate filed under sub-section (3) or received under subsection (1) or sub-section (4) shall be conclusive proof as to the amount due and the party in arrear in all proceedings taken by the Collector acting under such certificate or by any person acting under his authority and no proof of the seal or signature or official character of the District Collector issuing the certificate shall be required, unless the officer dealing with such certificate has reason to doubt its genuineness, provided always that nothing herein contained, shall affect the right of any party to sue in his own district the District Collector who issued the certificate. (6) The certificate issued under sub-section (1) and the requisition issued under sub-section (2) may be modified from time to time by the issuing officer and the certificate or requisition so modified shall be the authority of the Collector or the authorised officer to modify the demand." As per section 9 of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969, any amount due from an employer in pursuance of the provisions of the Act or the scheme framed thereunder can be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. Section 78 of the scheme framed under the above Act insists that the Chief Welfare Fund Inspector after ascertaining the amount of arrears shall issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector of the district in which the establishment and the properties of the employer are situated. Under section 69 (2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 also a written requisition to the Collector of the district is necessary and under subsection (3) of the above section, the Collector of the district has to sign a certificate showing the amount of demand, the name of the defaulter and such other particulars as are necessary. The above certificate is to be filed in the office of the Collector. The above certificate is to be filed in the office of the Collector. In this case, admittedly, no certificate has been issued by the 1st respondent and sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 69 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act will have no application because the petitioner-defaulter resides and owns property in the district of the 1st respondent. Without a certificate from the Collector of the district, no revenue recovery proceedings can be initiated or continued against the petitioner under section 69 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. The intention of section 78 of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme 1969 is also the same. 6. For the reasons stated above, there is a serious procedural flaw in the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner and hence the respondents cannot take any further steps in the matter. It is made clear that the respondents will be free to initiate fresh revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner for the arrears due from him after complying with the procedure contemplated in the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme 1969 and section 69 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. It is seen that as per the order of this court in C.M.P. No. 1652 of 1974 the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 4,000. If, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has made the above deposit, the amount in deposit need not be returned to the petitioner at this stage. It will be treated as part-payment of the arrears actually due from the petitioner. 7. The Original Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above . No costs.