Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 299 (KER)

Halimathu Beevi v. State of Kerala

1999-07-13

A.S.VENKATACHALA MOORTHY

body1999
Judgment :- A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J. The prayer in this Original Petition is to call for the records leading to Ext. P2 and quash the same. 2. Petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for conducting a provision shop on 10.11.1987. Petitioner made some payments but however on 17.11.1990 she acknowledged to the effect that she owes Rs. 18745.55. Subsequently as the loan amount was not paid the Bank by communication dated 28.1.1993 addressed to the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram requesting that the amount indicated therein with interest should be recovered from the defaulter. Along with that letter Annexure III (Form 24 under S.69(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968) was also enclosed. Basing on this the District Collector issued a certificate for recovery of the sum, namely Annexure IV (Form 25 under S.69(3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968). The amount mentioned in Annexure IV is Rs. 25,940/-. Thereafter the District Collector sent a communication dated 28.6.1993 to the Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, Thiruvananthapuram, directing him to recover the amount from the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act and intimate the recovery particulars. Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the respondents have initiated recover)' proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act to recover the said amount due from the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would put forth two submissions. Firstly it is contended that in view of the recent ruling of the Apex Court reported in State of Kerala v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty, 1999 (2) KLT 146, the recovery proceedings have to be dropped on the ground that they were initiated long after the period allowed under law. The second contention is that since the amount was paid under a commercial loan from the downtrodden like the petitioner, Revenue Recovery Act cannot be enforced. 4. The first issue that arises for consideration is what is the date that should be taken as the date on widenthe revenue recovery proceedings deemed to have been initiated. Is it when the demand is made under S.7 of the Revenue Recovery Act or is it when a requisition is made by the creditor to the revenue authority in Form 24 under S.69(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act? Is it when the demand is made under S.7 of the Revenue Recovery Act or is it when a requisition is made by the creditor to the revenue authority in Form 24 under S.69(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act? As far as the present case is concerned, as already pointed out, the amount became due on 7.11.1990 and the requisition under S.69(2) of the Act in Form 24 (Annexure III) was sent on 28th June, 1993 and the certificate in Form 25 (Annexure IV) under S.69(3) of the Act came to be issued on the same day. But on the other hand, the demand notice dated 15.3.1994 was received by the petitioner on 28.3.1994. The earlier view of a learned Single Judge of this Court to the effect that the date of demand is the day that should be taken as having initiated revenue recovery proceedings is no longer a good law in view of the recent ruling of the Apex Court reported in 1999 (2) KLT 146 (para.18), which is to the effect that the relevant date is when requisition was made by the Collector under S.69(2) of the Act in Form 24 (Annexure III). Or in other words the requisition by the Collector under S.69(2) of the Act in Form 24 (Annexure HI) should be taken as the date of initiation of the recovery proceedings. That being so, it Should be taken that the proceedings were initiated well within time. As far as the second contention is concerned, a reading of S.R.O.1465/87 issued by the State Government by virtue of the powers conferred under S.71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act would clearly show that the development schemes should include all financial assistance given through the banks under the schemes approved by the State/ Central Government or other Government agencies with a view to improve the living conditions of the economically and socially weaker section of the community. The S.R.O. is not exhaustive, and it should be taken that this would apply not only to the loans granted by way of financial assistance to economically and socially weaker section of the community but also for other loans. That being so, it cannot be said that the respondents were not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. In this view of the matter the Original Petition is dismissed.