Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1077 (KER)

K. N. Purushothaman v. Inspector, Thodupuzha

2011-10-27

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2011
Judgment : 1. The petitioner is challenging the Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the properties owned by the petitioner seeking to realise a sum of ` 34,666/- allegedly due from the petitioner under the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act, in respect of the engagement of the employees during the year 1992-93. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was never a licensee of any toddy shops in question, but was only a 'daily wage earner' working under the 5th respondent, who was the licensee of four toddy shops in Muvattupuzha Range. In spite of the actual facts and figures, the petitioner was quite shockingly served with Ext. P3 demand notice by the respondents demanding a sum of ` 34,666/-stated as due to be satisfied for the period from 07/07/1992 to 31/03/1993. It is stated that the petitioner, though rushed to the concerned respondent, it did not turn to be fruitful and hence approached this Court by filing the Original Petition; wherein an interim order was passed intercepting the coercive proceedings. 3. A counter - affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, i.e. the Revenue Authorities, stating that the Revenue Recovery Proceedings were initiated pursuant to a letter bearing No. B1-22770/01 / K dated 21/05/2001 of the District Collector. But nowhere in the said counter - affidavit, has been stated that the petitioner is liable to satisfy the same by virtue of his position as a licensee to the toddy shops in question, nor is there any denial as to the specific averment raised by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the Original Petition that he was never the licensee, but only a daily -rated employee of the 5th respondent. So also, no counter -affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, at whose instance the Revenue Recovery Proceedings have been initiated and pursued by the other respondents. No final determination order or any other proceeding to fasten the petitioner with the liability to satisfy the amount allegedly due from him is produced before this Court. No counter -affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue Authorities at length. 5. No counter -affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue Authorities at length. 5. As mentioned above, there is no specific denial of the averment made by the petitioner in the Original Petition, as to his nature of engagement and also as to the identity of the actual licensee. As such, adverse inference is liable to be drawn, more so, in view of the law declared by a Division Bench of this Court in Venkitaramanan Potti v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 1993 KHC 346 : 1993 (2) KLT 374 : 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 46 : 1993 (2) KLJ 438 and also Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Lueas TVS Ltd., Padi, Chennai, 2008 KHC 4167 : 2008 (1) SCC 674 : 2008 (297) ITR 429, holding that non - denial of pleadings are liable to be treated as admission and that admitted fact does not require any further proof by virtue of the mandate under S.58 of the Indian Evidence Act. 6. Coming to the nature of the alleged debt, it is the admitted case that the amount is stated as due under the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act. Whether the amount payable to the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund as above constitutes any "arrears of public revenue due on land" had come up for consideration before this Court and as per the verdict reported in Annandan K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others, 2009 (4) KHC 1002, 2009 (3) KLJ 509 : 2009 (4) KLT SN 74 it was held that such dues payable to the Welfare Fund will not attract the colour and characteristic of 'public revenue due on land', though the beneficiary is entitled to have the said amount realised, by resorting to the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act, in view of the notification issued under S.71. If the said amount is not under arrear of public revenue due on land, the next question is, what is the period of limitation. Obviously, this can never be beyond 'three years', in view of the relevant provisions of law. 7. Going by the materials on record, the liability sought to be realised is in respect of the assessment year 1992-93, as borne by the demand notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. Obviously, this can never be beyond 'three years', in view of the relevant provisions of law. 7. Going by the materials on record, the liability sought to be realised is in respect of the assessment year 1992-93, as borne by the demand notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is asserted in the counter -affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent that initiation of the Revenue Recovery Proceedings is in the year 2001. This being the position, it is crystal - clear that by the time the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act was set in motion,the debt had already become tirne -barred. As such, the further question is, whether, the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act can be deployed to realise a 'time - barred' debt. The answer is in the 'negative', in view of declaration of law made by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. V. R. Kaliyanikutty, 1999 KHC 297: 1999 (2) KLT 146: 1999 (1) KLJ 811: 1999 (3) SCC 657: AIR 1999 SC 1305: 1999 AIR SCW 996: JT 1999 (2) SC 540: 1999 (2) SCALE 374: 1999 (3) Supreme 451. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The impugned proceedings are set aside and the Original Petition is allowed. No costs.