Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the standing counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. 2. In 1995, the petitioner availed of a loan of Rs.57,000/-from respondents 3 and 4. He committed default and even according to respondents 3 and 4 requisition under Section 69(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act was issued for realising dues, only in the year 2007. Pursuant to the said requisition, Exts.P4 and P5 under the Revenue Recovery Act were issued for recovering Rs.1,84,198/-. It is challenging the recovery proceedings, the writ petition is filed. 3. Two contentions are raised. The first contention is that the petitioner has already paid the entire amount due and therefore, the recovery proceedings are illegal. This contention of the petitioner is answered in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4, which reads thus: "The various grounds urged in the writ petition are not tenable. The petitioner has only repaid an amount of Rs.27,780/-towards the loan account. The petitioner has not paid any amount after August, 1997. A sum of Rs.1,84,198/-was outstanding as balance as on 24.01.2008 and the respondents 3 and 4 are entitled to realise the same from the petitioner and his assets." 4. In the light of the above averments in the counter affidavit, I am unable to accept the case of the petitioner that the entire liability has been discharged. 5. The second contention raised is that the debt is a time barred one and therefore, cannot be recovered. This contention of the petitioner is answered by respondents 3 and 4 relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Godan Namboothiripad v. Kerala Financial Corporation, Vellayambalam and others(AIR 1998 Kerala 31), where it has been held as follows: "Even if it is assumed that the Limitation Act is applicable, the amount due to the institution notified under Section 71 of the K.R.R. Act is treated on a par with the amounts due to the Government in terms of Section 68 and as such Article 112 of the Limitation Act shall govern the case. It provides a period of 30 years as the period of limitation for filing suits to recover the amount due to Government. It provides a period of 30 years as the period of limitation for filing suits to recover the amount due to Government. In view of this Full Bench decision, the finding of the Board of Revenue and the State Government on this issue in Exts.P2 and P4 therefore, cannot be sustained." 6. Therefore, counsel contended that since their institution is notified under Section 71, they are entitled to the extended period of limitation of 30 years as provided under Article 112 of the Limitation Act. Counsel also relied on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Inspector, Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board v. Vijayan ( 2009 (1) KLT 410 ), where also similar view was taken. 7. However, having considered the submissions made, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. Respondents have no case that if the extended period of limitation is not applicable, the requisition was within the period of limitation as provided under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, which provides for 3 years. A Division Bench of this Court in A.K. Nanu and others v. State of Kerala and others( 1987(2) KLT 921 ) held that debts barred by limitation cannot be recovered by taking recourse to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. That judgment of the Division Bench was reversed by a Full Bench of this Court in Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd. v. P.S. John and others ( 1996(1) KLJ 540 ). In that judgment, the Full Bench took the view that the limitation Act has applicability only to courts and not to proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is following this judgment, the Division Bench judgment in Godan Namboothiripad's case was decided. Appeals were filed against the Full Bench judgment and the Apex Court disposed of the matters by its judgment in State of Kerala v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty( 1999(2) KLT 146 ), where the Full Bench judgment was reversed. It was also held that the dues which are legally recoverable alone can be recovered invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act whose only object was to effect speedy recovery. In other words, according to the Apex Court, the Revenue Recovery Act did not create any new rights or obligations but only provided the machinery for a speedy recovery of the debt. 8. The relevant part of the judgment reads thus: "10. In other words, according to the Apex Court, the Revenue Recovery Act did not create any new rights or obligations but only provided the machinery for a speedy recovery of the debt. 8. The relevant part of the judgment reads thus: "10. The same reasoning would apply in the present case also. The Kerala Revenue Recovery Act does not create any new right. It merely provides a process for speedy recovery of moneys due. Therefore, instead of filling a suit, (or an application or petition under any special Act), obtaining a decree and executing it, the bank or the financial institution can now recover the claim under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Since this Act does not create any new right, the person claiming recovery cannot claim recovery of amounts which are not legally recoverable nor can a defence of limitation available to a debtor in a suit or other legal proceeding be taken away under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act." 9. Admittedly, the period of limitation for recovering the dues of any institution, is three years as provided under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. Since the Revenue Recovery Act does not create any new rights or obligations, the fact that a notification has been issued, cannot have any effect on the 3 year period of limitation prescribed under Article 113. If that be so, the requisition insofar as this case is concerned, was issued beyond the said period and hence the recovery proceedings initiated on that basis is illegal. 10. Coming to the Division Bench judgment in Godan Namboothiripad's case(supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, that judgment was rendered by a Division Bench following the Full Bench judgment in Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd's case (supra), which as already seen, has been reversed by the Apex Court. Further, if the principle laid down by the Apex Court that the Revenue Recovery Act does not create any new rights and obligations is followed, for that reason also, the Division Bench judgment cannot be accepted as laying down the correct principle of law. Insofar as the judgment in Inspector, Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board's case(supra) is concerned, first of all that judgment was rendered without noticing the Apex Court judgment in State of Kerala v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty's case(supra). Insofar as the judgment in Inspector, Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board's case(supra) is concerned, first of all that judgment was rendered without noticing the Apex Court judgment in State of Kerala v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty's case(supra). Secondly, that judgment has rendered relying on the judgment in Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board v. William Raynold ( 2004(3) KLT 1083 ), which only held that under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, the dues under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, can be recovered. This Court is bound by the principles laid down by the Apex Court, which has not been noticed by the Division Bench and for that reason itself, I am unable to follow the Division Bench judgment in Inspector, Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board (Supra). For the aforesaid reasons, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner is illegal and for that reason, Exts.P4 and P5 are quashed.