ORDER :- These writ petitions are directed against the orders issued by the Social Welfare Department/District Collector/Tahsildar under Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Act 2 of 1864) to recover money due to the Government from the petitioners in the respective writ petitions. Facts in issue, contentions and issues for consideration being same in all the writ petitions, they are being disposed of by common order. 2. Facts giving rise to institution of these writ petitions are as under: (A) Petitioners in all the writ petitions are the managements of private colleges running various courses like Intermediate, degree and professional courses. For the sake of convenience, facts narrated and material papers filed in WP No.17164 of 2009 are referred to. Petitioners charge fee from the students prosecuting courses in their institutions. As a social welfare measure, Government of Andhra Pradesh formulated a scheme, whereunder Government reimburses fee payable to private colleges for prosecuting courses of study administered in the private colleges by the students belonging to Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and Backward Classes communities. For the period commencing from 1998-99 to 2001-02 certain amounts were paid by the State Government directly to the privately run institutions which include petitioners towards fee payable by the students prosecuting the courses of study offered by these institutions and belonging to SC, ST and BC categories. The amount granted by the Government was received by the petitioners during the said academic sessions. (B) In April, 2008, the District Collector, Hyderabad District issued notices to the managements of the private colleges including the petitioners bringing to their notice that during the academic years between 1998-99 and 2001-02, excess amount was paid to them than the actual amount of fee payable by the students belonging to SC, ST and BC categories. One such notice is filed as EX.Pl at page 15 in the paper book filed in WP No.17164 of 2009. Statement at Page 2 of the said notice, shows that as against the fee fixed in Column No.2, higher amount was paid. For example, for the academic year 1998-99, the fee fixed by the college was only Rs.720/- whereas Rs.2,800/- was paid, thus, an amount of Rs.2080 in excess was paid to Siddthartha Degree College for Women, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. In the said manner, for four academic years excess amounts paid to Siddthartha Degree College for Women/first petitioner in WP No.17164 of 2009 were quantified as Rs.1,59,900/-. In the said manner, for four academic years excess amounts paid to Siddthartha Degree College for Women/first petitioner in WP No.17164 of 2009 were quantified as Rs.1,59,900/-. Thus, college was directed to refund the said amount. (C) In response to the notice dated 3.4.2008, the first petitioner college submitted its explanation dated 16.4.2008, which reads as under: "In compliance to your letter for remittance of excess amount sanctioned (as per the given list) from 1998-99 to 2001-2002. We hereby bring to your kind notice that the amount sanctioned to the number of students specified has been dispersed to the students in the same years noted and its highly impossible on our part to remit the excess amount from the students, as they have already left our institution after the completion of their course. (D) Similar stand is expressed by the managements of the colleges concerned. Thereafter proceedings were initiated under Revenue Recovery Act, 1894 (for short the Act, 1894). Initially Section 8 notice was issued. In response to Section 8 notice, similar explanations as above were offered. Since the amounts payable to the Government and demanded by the District Collector was not paid, Distraint order dated 28.7.2009 was passed. Against recovery of sum due to Government three writ petitions are instituted. One such distraint order is filed as Ex.P5 at page 24 along with WP No.17164 of 2009. Distraint Order (Section-8) A.P. Act II of 1864 (Revenue Department) No.C/699/07 Office of the Tahsildar Marredpally Mandal Smt. N. Radhaki Ramani, Deputy Tahsildar, Marredpally Mandai, Hyderabad District is authorised to distraint the property under mentioned defaulter for arrears of revenue duty by him:- Number and Name of the Village Name of the Defaulter For what period arrears is Amount of arrears due Date on witch arrears fell due Batta to destrainer Interest rate and amount of data Date of distress and delivery of copy to defaulter or if no distress is made date of payment due Vishnuchaitanya Junior College, Tarnaka, Secunderabad 2,82,276 Enclosed proceeding 250 per day 6% 28.72009 The defaulter is hereby informed that if the amount due together with batta and all expenses of distress be not previously discharged the distained property will be immediately brought to public sale. Station : Marredpally Mandal Date: 20.7.2009 Sd/Tahsildar, Marredpally Mandal Notes: (I) The defaulter is informing that on presentation of the distraint order he should pay the arrears together with date, the village headman and obtain a receipt from him. On no account should be the defaulter pay the money on the batta peon even though the latter has been authorized to execute his order. (2) The des trained should produce this order and if the sum due be not at once paid he may make distress and on the day on which the property is detrained they are on a list of the property distained and name of the place where it is kept (clause I Section 8) Act II of 1864. 3. Heard Sri Yogesh Raavi for Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, Sri Ch. Ravinder, Sri Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar, Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Sri Shreyash Reddy for Sri Gaddam Srinivas, Sri A. Dattanand and Sri E.V.S.S. Acharyulu for respective petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. 4. The learned Counsel for petitioners have made following submissions: (i) Unless the power is vested in the Government to recover an amount due, no recovery can be affected by resorting to provisions under the Act, 1894. No such recovery can be affected by the Government based on an executive fiat incorporated into the reimbursement scheme. If the Government is aggrieved by any wrong payments made, the only option available to the Government is to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent Court by filing suit for recovery in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Provision under Section 52 of the Act, 1894 has no application since there is no statutory provision which enables Government to resort to recover alleged excess amounts paid in terms of scheme formulated by the Government i.e., reimbursement of fee to the students belonging to SC, ST and BC communities. When there is no such power vested in the Government, it cannot resort to power under Section 52 of the Act, 1894 to recover the money. (iii) It is further contended that power under Section 52 of the Act 1894 is power of execution of amounts quantified and due, since no order was passed in consequence to the show cause notice issued (Ex. (iii) It is further contended that power under Section 52 of the Act 1894 is power of execution of amounts quantified and due, since no order was passed in consequence to the show cause notice issued (Ex. P 1 at Page 15 of WP No.17164 of 2009), therefore there was no determination of amounts due and without such determination there cannot be execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Act, 1894. (iv) For argument sake, if such power is available and the amounts are due, on the 2: ground of inordinate delay in initiation of the proceedings of recovery, the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside. Recovery proceedings were initiated in the year 2008 on the alleged payments made during the academic years 1998-99 to 20012002, and thus on the sole ground of delay in initiating proceedings for recovery, proceedings an; liable to be set aside. (v) It is further contended that even to invoke the provision under Section 52 of the Act, 1894 to recover the monies due, the law of limitation would apply and therefore the claim having been made after more than three years, recovery is not maintainable even under Act, 1894. In support of contentions in Paras (iv) and (v), learned Counsel for petitioners relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty and another, (1999) 3 SCC 657 = 1999 (3) ALD (S.C.S.N.) 10-2 and decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in N.A. Radha and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2000 (2) ALD 560, which judgment is rendered by following the judgment in Kalliyanikutty and C.E. Cooper v. Municipal Commissioner of Hyderabad, rep. by Addl. Commissioner, Secunderabad, 1997 (3) ALD 771 (D.B.) = 1997 (5) ALT 466 . (vi) It is further contented, in support of their ground on limitation and delay that on account of inordinate delay in initiating proceedings, students who prosecuted the course of study have left their colleges long ago and it is not possible to recover the money from them. Unless the money is recovered from the students, the said money cannot be refunded to the Government inasmuch as the amount sanctioned by the Government was refunded to the students since fee was collected from the students as there was delay in sanctioning the money by the Government towards scholarships. Unless the money is recovered from the students, the said money cannot be refunded to the Government inasmuch as the amount sanctioned by the Government was refunded to the students since fee was collected from the students as there was delay in sanctioning the money by the Government towards scholarships. (vii) It is further contended by the learned Counsel for petitioners that recovery as contemplated in the Revenue Recovery Act is with reference to land revenue due to the Government and provision contained in Section 52 is a special provision and has limited application. Revenue recovery and other kinds of recovery are different and insofar as recovery as mandated by Section 52 is concerned, power available to the Government to recover the money is not as wide as provided in other provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. (viii) Ancillary to the above contentions, Sri Ravinder learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that when there is no misrepresentation, there cannot be any recovery even assuming excess amount is paid. It is contended that petitioners have not misrepresented about the entitlement towards reimbursement and amounts were paid by the Government on their own and therefore petitioners cannot be penalized, more so, after long lapse of time to repay such amounts. In support of this contention, learned Counsel relied upon decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Paras Nath Singh v. State of Bihar and others, (2009) 6 SCC 314 . 5. Learned Government Pleader made the following submissions: (i) Managements were paid excess amounts than the fee payable by a student who is eligible for scholarship. The managements of the institutions illegally retained the excess amounts. Thus, Government asked the managements to remit the excess amounts paid to them. As managements were not yielding to part with illegally received money, steps are initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act to recover the amounts due. (ii) Show-cause notice issued in April, 2008 clearly indicates the amount actually 226 due, the amount sanctioned and difference of amount which was paid in excess and the academic year during which that excess amount was paid. Petitioners have not disputed the quantum of amount specified in the notices. (ii) Show-cause notice issued in April, 2008 clearly indicates the amount actually 226 due, the amount sanctioned and difference of amount which was paid in excess and the academic year during which that excess amount was paid. Petitioners have not disputed the quantum of amount specified in the notices. On the contrary, the only defence taken by them is that the amounts sanctioned by the Government was disbursed to the students in the same year and it is highly impossible to recover the same as students have already left the institutions after completing their course of study. He therefore emphasizes that the amount was already determined in the proceedings issued in April, 2008 and the amount quantified is not disputed by the managements of the petitioner colleges. (iii) Learned Government Pleader further contended that since amount is already determined, it is the amount which is due to Government as mandated by Section 52 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Since the amount quantified in April, 2008 is amount due to the Government and in spite of notice issued under Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act and opportunity afforded to them even before initiating proceedings under the Act, and since petitioners have not remitted the amount excess drawn by them, proceedings under Section 52 of the Act were validly initiated and there was no illegality or procedural irregularity. The District Collector/Tahsildar is competent to initiate proceedings under Section 52 to recover the money due to Government. Learned Government Pleader submits that the power was validly exercised and provision under Section 52 of the Act has application to the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. (iv) On the issue of limitation, learned Government Pleader submits that no limitation would apply to recover money due to the Government. Relying on provision in Article 112 of the Limitation Act, learned Government Pleader submits that insofar as Government money is concerned, limitation period is 30 years and proceedings were initiated well within time. In support of his contention, learned Government Pleader relied on judgment of this Court in WA No.513 of 2003 dated 15.4.2011 wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that to recover the Government money period of limitation is 30 years. In support of his contention, learned Government Pleader relied on judgment of this Court in WA No.513 of 2003 dated 15.4.2011 wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that to recover the Government money period of limitation is 30 years. Learned Government Pleader further contends that far excess amount was paid to the petitioners than actual amount to be reimbursed towards fee payable by students belonging to SC, ST and BC communities and excess amount was quantified based on records which is not disputed. Retention of such amount, amounts to undue enrichment by the petitioners. Petitioners were aware that they are not entitled to retain the amount received by them from the Government and it is their bounden duty to refund the said amount. Having committed such breach of receiving huge amount to which they are not entitled to, petitioners cannot plead delay and limitation, more particularly when petitioners have not shown justification in defence against contention of illegally receiving money from the Government. Learned Government Pleader further submits that in support of their contention that the amount granted by the Government was actually reimbursed to the students, no material is filed. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that amount was given to the students is not valid and therefore it amounts to undue enrichment on the part of the petitioners. The money paid by the Government being public money, it is not in public interest to apply the principle of delay and limitation more so it was illegally retained and is an unjust enrichment and confer undue benefit on the petitioners. 6. The issues that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are as under: 1. Whether amount due from the colleges was determined by the Government by following due process? 2. Whether the amount quantified is the 'sum due' and Government is competent to invoke Section 52 of the Revenue Recovery Act to recover the sum due from the petitioners? 3. Whether the impugned action is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the actions of petitioners amounts to unjust enrichment? Issue No.1: 7. Any student intending to prosecute the course of study, more so, higher education requires to pay fees for prosecuting the said course of study. The fees payable is higher in the colleges established and maintained by the private societies/ organizations. 4. Whether the actions of petitioners amounts to unjust enrichment? Issue No.1: 7. Any student intending to prosecute the course of study, more so, higher education requires to pay fees for prosecuting the said course of study. The fees payable is higher in the colleges established and maintained by the private societies/ organizations. There are many students though keen to prosecute higher studies but due to financial constraints unable to prosecute. The parents discourage them from undertaking higher education due to huge financial requirement and make them involve in the family avocation or take up petty jobs so that the family can earn some living. On account of these financial difficulties, many bright students are dropping out, or not expressing willingness to prosecute higher education. Realizing the same and in order to obviate the difficulties faced by the families who are very poor and cannot offered to permit their ward to prosecute higher studies, State Government formulated a scheme wherein the Government came forward to pay the fee payable to Educational Institutions, where the students belonging to Backward Classes, Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities intend to prosecute their studies. However, due to financial constraints, the Government could not release funds before the commencement of academic year. In order to obviate difficulties the students would face in seeking admission due to delay in releasing funds as required by them, the Government directed the educational institutions to admit the students without insisting the students belonging to Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who are eligible for the grant of fee under the scheme formulated by the Government to pay the admission and tuition fees and that Government would pay the fee. However, managements of the educational institutions have made the students to pay the admission and tuition fees and students were admitted only if they paid the admission and tuition fees. 8. As soon as money is made available officers/employees who are responsible for implementation of the scheme directly paid the money to the educational institutions. Two grave irregularities were committed: (1) without verifying whether fee was paid by the student at the time of his admission, the money was directly released to the institution; and (2) excess money was paid to the institution than the actual fees chargeable by the institution for the concerned course of study, which may vary from Intenl1ediate, graduation courses to professional courses. No consequential effort was also made by the officers/ employees to find out whether the students were reimbursed the fee so paid and whether the fee paid by the Government was satisfying the requirements of the students or excess amount is paid. 9. Public spirited persons complained to Hon'ble Lok Ayukta that public funds were swindled in this manner. At the instance of Hon'ble Lok Ayukta wheels of administration were set in motion. There was correspondence on the issue long before notices were served on petitioners directing them to refund excess amount paid to them. On the notice to refund the money to Government, the defence taken by the Managements of the Educational Institutions, primarily, are twofold, (1) that whatever the amount is paid by the Government is reimbursed to the students by the college Managements; and (2) there is inordinate delay in taking steps for recovery and therefore on that ground itself recovery ought not to have been taken up. 10. For every course of study starting from Intermediate Education to the Post Graduation, Professional or Non-Professional courses fee structure is prescribed individually to each of the course. Determined amount is required to be paid by the student to prosecute a particular course of study of his choice. Thus, Management was aware what was the fee required to be collected and the fee paid by the student. Government stepped in to pay the fee on behalf of the student. Thus, when the Managements received the amounts from the Government, Managements were aware how much of the amount was paid by the students and when they knew that excess amount was paid by the Government, it was their duty to inform the Government and remit the excess money received from the Government back to the Government. This was not done by the Managements. In fact, Managements have committed grave error in accepting the money from the Government. Assuming that the officers/ employees concerned were not aware of the fact that the Managements have already collected the tuition fees from the students, it was the bounden duty of the Managements to inform the Government that fee was already collected from the students and therefore no fee is due from the student and that the money ought not to have been given to them. These are two grave errors committed by the Managements. These are two grave errors committed by the Managements. It cannot be said that Managements were ignorant of such errors and was not deliberate and wilful. Knowing fully well that no amount is due from Government under the scheme of reimbursement of fee payable by the student prosecuting course of study in their institution amount was received, appropriated in their accounts and no effort was made to refund the money so received. Lack of bona fides are evident from the fact that even when petitioners were told that excess amount was paid, petitioners were not willing to part with the money. In the said manner, huge public money was misappropriated by the college Managements. 11. Detailed exercise was undertaken and quantum of amount paid in excess than what was due was determined. Each of the notices issued to petitioners clearly specify how much of the amount was due from the students in the concerned college and how much amount was actually paid and the amount excess paid. When the Managements received the notices, they were aware that this was the amount paid by Government, that cannot be retained by them. The Managements have not disputed the quantum of amount paid to them and quantified by the Government. The only defence taken by them was that whatever amount is paid to them by the Government is refunded to the students. However, no material is placed to substantiate their claim. When the fact of amounts specified in the notices is not disputed, it was the bounden duty of the Managements to support their contention that the entire amount paid by the Government is refunded to the students. Even in the writ proceedings also no material is placed on record to substantiate the said contention. Thus amount as determined and quantified by the Government, is not disputed. This was the sum due to the Government. Illegally public funds were received by the Managements. No amount was payable by the Government as students have already paid the fee. Thus, there was no further exercise required by the Government. Thus, when the facts are not in dispute on the specious ground that no formal order is communicated to them, the proceedings cannot be held to have been vitiated. The petitioners were put on notice on sum due to Government. Notice contains details of sum due. Thus, there was no further exercise required by the Government. Thus, when the facts are not in dispute on the specious ground that no formal order is communicated to them, the proceedings cannot be held to have been vitiated. The petitioners were put on notice on sum due to Government. Notice contains details of sum due. Petitioners have not disputed the amount quantified and liability to pay. Thus, sum due is determined by affording reasonable opportunity. In the facts of these cases, nothing more was required to be done and amount quantified is the sum due from each of the colleges, who are all petitioners. There is no procedural infirmity in the impugned exercise much less grave irregularity touching upon the very basis of the action. Furthermore, accepting the contention of petitioners would result in restoring a position to which petitioners are not entitled in law. It would thus amount to restoring another illegality. Principles of natural justice are not inflexible to apply to every situation and to every decision of the State. Glaring facts on record in these writ petitions cannot be ignored to nullify the impugned decisions on the ground that final order of quantifying amount is not communicated. More so, when there is no variation from initial determination. Issue No.2: 12. It is next contended with great vigour and force that provisions of Revenue Recovery Act have no application to recover the amounts alleged to have been paid in excess to the petitioners. Revenue Recovery Act is a special enactment dealing exclusively with the recovery of arrears of revenue to the State and Act seeks to consolidate the law relating to collection of public revenue. To appreciate the contention urged by the learned Counsel for petitioners, it is necessary to understand the provision contained in Section 52 of the Revenue Recovery Act, which reads as under: "52. To appreciate the contention urged by the learned Counsel for petitioners, it is necessary to understand the provision contained in Section 52 of the Revenue Recovery Act, which reads as under: "52. Similar Process in case of other Species of Revenue, Advances, Fees, Cesses, etc.-All arrears of revenue other than land revenue due to the State Government, all advances made by the State Government for cultivation or other purposes connected with the revenue, and all fees or other dues payable by any person to or on behalf of the village servants employed in revenue or public duties, and all cesses lawfully imposed upon land and all sums due to the State Government, including compensation for any loss or damage sustained by them in consequence of land revenue under the provisions of this Act, unless the recovery thereof shall have been or may hereafter be otherwise specially provided for." 13. Two important components of this provision are (i) provisions of Revenue Recovery Act can be resorted to where amounts are due to the State Government other than the land revenue; and (ii) Such recovery can be effected provided there is no other special provision made to recover such amounts. The impugned recovery is against sum due to Government 14. On fulfilment of the above conditions, the recovery as mandated by Revenue Recovery Act can be set in motion. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 8, demand in writing should be Issued by the District Collector or an officer empowered by him which should contain the name of the defaulter the amount of arrears due and date on which the arrears fell due. If there, is no response to the demand issued under Section 8, procedure as mandated by Section 9 shall follow. 15. In the instant case Government realised that public money was wrongly paid to petitioners and petitioners illegally retained the said money. Detailed exercise was undertaken to identify the excess amount paid. The detailed calculations were enumerated in the form of a tabulated statement and communicated to the petitioner Managements calling upon them to refund the money to the Government forthwith. Thus sum due was quantified and petitioners were put on notice. Detailed exercise was undertaken to identify the excess amount paid. The detailed calculations were enumerated in the form of a tabulated statement and communicated to the petitioner Managements calling upon them to refund the money to the Government forthwith. Thus sum due was quantified and petitioners were put on notice. Instead of refunding the money, defence taken by the Managements, almost uniformity, was that amount paid to them was refunded to the students and since students are already left the colleges on completion of their course of study, it is impossible to recover the money from them. It is important to notice at this stage that there is no dispute as to the quantification made by the Government but only plea taken was that it is not possible for them to refund the money as money is not with them. That the amount quantified is the amount due to the Government. That the money received by the Managements of the petitioner institutions was not payable to them by the State and this was illegally appropriated. There is no other special provision made to recover this sum. Any sum due to Government is recoverable by resorting to Revenue Recovery Act. As mandated by Section 52, the amount quantified to the respective petitioner institutions is the sum due to Government and recoverable as per the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act. There is no illegality or irregularity in resorting to Revenue Recovery Act. Issue No.3: 16. It is next contended that there is delay in initiating proceedings to recover the money and law of limitation applies to Revenue Recovery Act proceedings also and on that ground the recovery proceedings are not maintainable. Even to invoking provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, the sum due has to be within the period of limitation and Limitation Act shall also apply. To recover sum due, period of limitation being 3 years to institute civil proceedings that time having lapsed, impugned proceedings are not maintainable. In support of their contentions, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala's case (supra), C.E. Cooper's case (supra) and decision of this Court in N.A. Radha's case (supra). 17. In support of their contentions, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala's case (supra), C.E. Cooper's case (supra) and decision of this Court in N.A. Radha's case (supra). 17. Opposing the contention that recovery of sum due impugned in the writ petitions is vitiated by delay, learned Government Pleader relied on provision in Article 112 of the Limitation Act and the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Karanam Chinna Krishna Murthy v. Prohibition and Excise Department, Hyderabad and others, W A No.513 of 2003 dated 15.4.2011. 18. Section 71 of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 enables the Kerala Government to notify applicability of provisions of the Act to recover amounts due from any person or class of persons to any specified institution to any class or classes of institutions and on such notification the provisions of the Act would apply to such recovery. This power was exercised by Kerala Government and extended the provisions of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act to agricultural loans borrowed from public sector/Cooperative Banks and loans borrowed from State Financial Corporation. Invoking the said provision, the bank sought to recover agricultural loans and also Kerala Finance Corporation to recover loans advanced. The civil appeals arising out of the said issue were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala's case (supra). 19. The question for consideration before the Hon 'ble Supreme Court was "whether a debt which is barred by the law of limitation can be recovered by resorting to recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 19687" 20. The said recoveries were covered by collateral securities and period of limitation available was twelve years. Whereas recovery proceedings were initiated beyond 12 years. On detailed consideration of the matter, Hon'ble Supreme Court is pleased to hold as under: "16. There is no question, however, in the present case of any payment voluntarily made by a debtor being adjusted by his creditor against a time-barred debt. The provisions in the present case are statutory provisions for coercive recovery of "amounts due". Although the necessity of filing a suit by a creditor is avoided, the extent of the claim which is legally recoverable is not thereby enlarged. Under Section 70(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act the right of a debtor to file a suit for refund is expressly preserved. Although the necessity of filing a suit by a creditor is avoided, the extent of the claim which is legally recoverable is not thereby enlarged. Under Section 70(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act the right of a debtor to file a suit for refund is expressly preserved. Instead of the bank or the financial institution filing a suit which is defended by the debtor, the creditor first recovers and then defends his recovery in a suit filed by the debtor. The rights of the parties are not thereby enlarged. The process of recovery is different. An Act must expressly provide for such enlargement of claims which are legally recoverable, before it can be interpreted as extending to the recovery of those amounts which have ceased to be legally recoverable on the date when recovery proceedings are undertaken. Under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act such a process of recovery would start with a written requisition issued in the prescribed form by the creditor to the Collector of the district as prescribed under Section 69(2) of the said Act. Therefore, all claims which are legally recoverable and are not time-barred on that date can be recovered under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act." 21. It is further held that "Looking to the scheme of recovery and refund under Sections 70 and 71 amounts due' under Section 71 are those amounts which the creditor could have recovered had he filed a suit. 22. Similar issue has fallen for consideration before this Court in N.A. Radha and others case (supra), which was also a case of recovery of loans advanced by State Finance Corporation. Section 52 A of A.P. Revenue Recovery Act extends application of Revenue Recovery Act to loans advanced by State Financial Corporation. The recovery proceedings were opposed by the petitioner on the ground that said proceedings are barred by limitation, wherein reliance was placed on State of Kerala case (supra). The money is secured by mortgage and therefore the period of limitation was 12 years whereas recovery proceedings were initiated after more than 12 years. Relying on the said judgment this Court is pleased to hold that the recovery is barred by limitation and allowed the writ petition. 23. The money is secured by mortgage and therefore the period of limitation was 12 years whereas recovery proceedings were initiated after more than 12 years. Relying on the said judgment this Court is pleased to hold that the recovery is barred by limitation and allowed the writ petition. 23. In the case of C.E. Cooper's case (supra), the question for consideration was whether recovery of property tax is permissible beyond the period of limitation, it is held that "under the Revenue Recovery Act, it is only that amount is collectable which is due. The amount due must not be barred by limitation. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the submissions raised on behalf of the respondents. As a consequence to the above findings notice of recovery is set aside." 24. In the cases relied on by petitioners, Revenue Recovery Act was invoked by Banks/Finance Corporations/Municipal Corporations to whom Article 112 of Limitation Act is not applicable. Whereas in the instant cases recovery is by the State Government on the amounts due to Government and Article 112 of Limitation Act applies. 25. Article 112 of the Limitation Act reads as under: Article 112 Any suit (except a suit before the Supreme Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction) by or on behalf of the Central Government or any State Government, including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Thirty years When the period of limitation would begin to run under this Act against a like suit by a private person. 26. Similar issue has fallen for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in Karanam Chinna Krishna Murthy's case (supra), wherein Government resorted to the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act to recover the sums due to the Government. The claim for recovery is opposed by the petitioners/appellants therein on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It was contended that on 4.9.1978 and 18.9.1978 notices were issued demanding payment of money due to the Government, the petitioner therein responded to the notice vide explanation dated 30.10.1978 whereas further notice was issued only on 26.6.2001 i.e., after 23 years from the date of issuance of the first notice and submission of the explanation thereof. It was contended that on 4.9.1978 and 18.9.1978 notices were issued demanding payment of money due to the Government, the petitioner therein responded to the notice vide explanation dated 30.10.1978 whereas further notice was issued only on 26.6.2001 i.e., after 23 years from the date of issuance of the first notice and submission of the explanation thereof. The following issue fell for consideration before the Division Bench: The next question that falls for consideration is whether the impugned notice is barred by limitation, as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant?" In support of the contention on delay, petitioner/appellant therein relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala's case (supra). The Division Bench of this Court held as under: Admittedly, in the instant case the amounts that are due to the Government are sought to be recovered under Section 52 of the Revenue Recovery Act, but not under Section 52-A of the Revenue Recovery Act, which authorises the State Government by notification in the Gazettee for recovery of the amounts due to the Corporation established by or under a Central Act or State Act and notifying the said Corporation as contemplated under Section 52 of the Revenue Recovery Act for enabling to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. Since Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides 30 years limitation for recovery of the amount due to the Government, the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the State Government cannot recover the amount from the appellant as it is barred by limitation, does not merit consideration." 27. The principle in Karnam Chinna Krishna Murthy's case (supra), applies in all fours to these writ petitions. Insofar as Government is concerned, the period of limitation prescribed is 30 years. Therefore the impugned recovery proceedings were initiated well within the period of limitation. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that the proceedings impugned in the batch of writ petitions ought to be set aside on the ground of delay and limitation, cannot be countenanced. Issue No.4 28. On review of the case law on recovery of excess amount paid to employees Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2012) 8 SCC 417 , held as under: "13. Issue No.4 28. On review of the case law on recovery of excess amount paid to employees Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2012) 8 SCC 417 , held as under: "13. We are not convinced that this Court in various judgments referred to hereinbefore has laid down any proposition of law that only if the State or its officials establish that there was misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the excess pay, then only the amount paid could be recovered. On the other hand, most of the cases referred to hereinbefore turned on the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases either because the recipients had retired or were on the verge of retirement or were occupying lower posts in the administrative hierarchy. 14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "tax payers' money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the Government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc., because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law call always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment." (emphasis supplied) 29. In view of this decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court the decision in Paras Nath Singh's case (supra), relied by learned Counsel for petitioner do not come to the aid of the petitioners. 30. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision, what is retained by the petitioners is unjust enrichment. In view of this decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court the decision in Paras Nath Singh's case (supra), relied by learned Counsel for petitioner do not come to the aid of the petitioners. 30. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision, what is retained by the petitioners is unjust enrichment. In Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 , Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue of claim for refund and restitution. The propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were incorporated in Para 108 of the judgment and for the purpose of this case, the proposition in Para 108(iii) is relevant, which reads as under: "108. The discussion in the judgment yields the following propositions. We may forewarn that these propositions are set out merely for the sake of convenient reference and are not supposed to be exhaustive. In case of any doubt or ambiguity in these propositions, reference must be had to the discussion and propositions in the body of the judgment. (i).. ... (ii).. ... . (iii) A claim for refund, whether made under the provisions of the Act as contemplated in Proposition (i) above or in a suit or writ petition in the situations contemplated by Proposition (ii) above, can succeed only if the petitioner/plaintiff alleges and establishes that he has not passed on the burden of duty to another person/other persons. His refund claim shall be allowed/decreed only when he establishes that he has not passed on the burden of the duty or to the extent he has not so passed on, as the case may be. Whether the claim for restitution is treated as a constitutional imperative or as a statutory requirement, it is neither an absolute right nor an unconditional obligation but is subject to the above requirement, as explained in the body of the judgment. Where the burden of the duty has been passed on, the claimant cannot say that he has suffered any real loss or prejudice. The real loss or prejudice is suffered in such a case by the person who has ultimately borne the burden and it is only that person who can legitimately claim its refund. Where the burden of the duty has been passed on, the claimant cannot say that he has suffered any real loss or prejudice. The real loss or prejudice is suffered in such a case by the person who has ultimately borne the burden and it is only that person who can legitimately claim its refund. But where such person does not come forward or where it is not possible to refund the amount to him for one or the other reason, it is just and appropriate that that amount is retained by the State, i.e., by the people. There is no immorality or impropriety involved in such a proposition. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is a just and salutary doctrine. No person can seek to collect the duty from both ends. In other words, he cannot collect the duty from his purchaser at one end and also collect the same duty from the State on the ground that it has been collected from him contrary to law. The power of the Court is not meant to be exercised for unjustly enriching a person. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is, however, inapplicable to the State. State represents the people of the country. No one can speak of the people being unjustly enriched." 31. In State of Maharashtra v. Swanstone Multiplex Cinema (P) Limited, (2009) 8 SCC 235 , where even though tax exemption was granted, the Cinema Theatre collected the amount from the cinema goers even without reference to the exemption granted. The exemption should normally be passed on to the consumer, whereas, exemption was retained by the management of Cinema Theatre. It is held: "31. In the absence of any express statutory provision, allowing the proprietors of the multiplex theatre to retain the benefit, it is difficult for us to arrive at such an inference. The State has power to impose tax. The State has a power to grant exemption or concession in respect of payment of tax. It has no power in terms of the provisions of the Constitution or otherwise to allow an assessee to collect the tax and retain the same. The State has power to impose tax. The State has a power to grant exemption or concession in respect of payment of tax. It has no power in terms of the provisions of the Constitution or otherwise to allow an assessee to collect the tax and retain the same. We will assume that to that effect the provisions are not very clear but the superior Courts will not interpret the statute in such a way which will confer an unjust benefit to any of the parties i.e., either the taxpayer or tax collector or the State. The statute• must be interpreted reasonably. It must be so interpreted so that it becomes workable. Interpretation of a statute must sub-serve a constitutional goal. A statute of this nature, in our considered opinion, cannot be interpreted in such a manner so as to enable an entrepreneur to get undue advantage to the effect that he would collect tax from the cinema goers and appropriate the same. When a person collects tax illegally, he has to refund it to the taxpayers. If the taxpayers cannot be found, the Court would either direct the same to be paid and/or appropriated by the State. 36. It may be true that hereat we are not concerned with refund of tax but then for enforcement of legal principles, this Court may direct a party to divest itself of the money or benefits, which in justice, equity and good conscience belongs to someone else. It must be directed to restitute that part of the benefit to which it was not entitled to." 32. In State of Gujarat v. Essar Oil Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 522 , Essar Oil Limited was granted certain exemption but those exemptions/concessions/incentives were governed by certain conditions and for a fixed period and after the expiry of that period, the an10unts were demanded by the Government. High Court agreed with the contentions urged by the petitioner on the ground (a) that the company was entitled to the benefit of the sales tax waiver on the principle of restitution and (b) company should not be made to loss the benefit under sales tax waiver scheme for an act of Court 'there was a Stay operating and therefore the company could not commence operations within the time naturally stipulated'. Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the doctrine of restitution and unjust enrichment and held as under: 61. Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the doctrine of restitution and unjust enrichment and held as under: 61. The concept of restitution is virtually a common law principle and it is a remedy against unjust enrichment or unjust benefit. The core of the concept lies in the conscience of the Court which prevents a party from retaining money or some benefit derived from another which it has received by way of an erroneous decree of Court. Such remedy in English Law is generally different from a remedy in contract or in tort and falls within a third category of common law remedy which is called quasicontract or restitution. 62. If we analyse the concept of restitution one thing emerges clearly that the obligation to restitute lies on the person or the authority that has received unjust enrichment or unjust benefit (see Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vo1.9, p.434). 63. If we look at Restatement of the Law of Restitution by American Law Institute (1937 American Law Institute Publishers, St. Paul) we get that a person is enriched if he has received a benefit and similarly a person is unjustly enriched if the retention of the benefit would be unjust. Now the question is what constitutes a benefit. A person confers benefit upon another if he gives to the other possession of or some other interest in money, land, chattels, or performs services beneficial to or at the request of the other, satisfies a debt or a duty of the other or in a way adds to the other's security or advantage. He confers a benefit not only where he adds to the property of another but also where he saves the other from expense or loss. Thus the word "benefit" therefore denotes any form of advantage (p.12 of the Restatement of the Law of Restitution by American Law Institute). 64. Ordinarily in cases of restitution if there is a benefit to one, there is a corresponding loss to other and in such cases, the benefiting party is also under a duty to give to the losing party, the amount by which he has been enriched." 33. Applying the above principles to the facts of these writ petitions, it is seen that the petitioners were not entitled to receive the amounts which were paid by the Government. Applying the above principles to the facts of these writ petitions, it is seen that the petitioners were not entitled to receive the amounts which were paid by the Government. They were aware that they were not entitled to receive such amounts but have not notified to the Government as soon as the amount was received. Petitioners failed to inform the Government that the colleges have already collected the fee from the students. The petitioners were under a duty to remit back the amount. On the contrary they declined to refund the amount even when the demand is made. Thus, the amount retained by the petitioners is unjust enrichment. Money belonging to the public was illegally retained and it amounts to playing fraud on public money. As contended by learned Government Pleader many educational institutions have refunded the money as soon as a demand is made. Only petitioner institutions are contesting the recovery. In all fairness, petitioners ought to have remitted the money voluntarily. The petitioners are not entitled to retain the said money. It is public money and it should be reverted back to State Treasury. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries case (supra), power of the Court is not meant to be exercised for unjustly enriching a person. 34. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions fail and accordingly dismissed. Sequel to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand dismissed. No costs.