JUDGMENT : Ziyad Rahman A.A., J. The petitioner is the Director of a private limited company by the name M/s.Raj Residency. This writ petition is filed by him, being aggrieved by the demand of collection charges under Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, in respect of the recovery affected from the amount received by the petitioner as compensation for acquiring the immovable property of the petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Such recovery was affected for realizing the arrears of tax payable by the Company named above. 2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was awarded with a land acquisition compensation to the tune of Rs.87,83,471/- as per Ext.P1 award dated 17.03.2022. However, the said amount was withheld by the Revenue authorities, on the ground that, there were certain arrears of sales tax, recoverable from the Company in which the petitioner was the Director. The action of withholding the compensation was challenged by the petitioner before this Court, by filing W.P.(C).No.24177 of 2022 and the said writ petition was ultimately disposed of as per Ext.P2. In Ext.P2 judgment, this Court directed the Revenue authorities to release the amount payable to the petitioner as per the award, after withholding a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. It was further directed that the 1 st respondent therein, i.e.,the Land Acquisition Officer, shall remit Rs.50,00,000/- to be adjusted against the tax liability of the petitioner, to the designated account of the Commercial Taxes Department, which was to be intimated by the Deputy Commissioner, Tax Payer Services Division, Goods and Services Tax Department, Kollam. The said direction was issued without prejudice to the right of the Company to invoke the statutory remedies against the demands in accordance with law. 3. Accordingly, the said amounts were released after withholding Rs.50,00,000/-. Subsequently, the Company settled the remaining tax arrears, by availing the Amnesty Scheme and the amount so paid as per the settlement was Rs.1,19,906/-. Thus, the entire tax liability of the assessee company, in which the petitioner was the Director, was settled, by way of adjustment of land acquisition compensation and also by direct payment to the Tax Department. Subsequently, the Company settled the remaining tax arrears, by availing the Amnesty Scheme and the amount so paid as per the settlement was Rs.1,19,906/-. Thus, the entire tax liability of the assessee company, in which the petitioner was the Director, was settled, by way of adjustment of land acquisition compensation and also by direct payment to the Tax Department. In the writ petition, the petitioner had furnished the details of the payments effected, in a tabular form, which are as follows: Challan/Certificate No. and date Amount Period KL016855195202324M 25.08.202. Rs.5000000.00 (Towards demand of Rs.5244301.00) 2007-08 to 2016-17 KL027559973202324M 13.12.2023 Rs.2,44,301.00 (Towards balance of aforesaid amount) 2016-17 CERT 3208247862921 22.08.2024 Rs.1,19,906.00 (Towards OTS for the demand under dispute in appeal) 2013-14 4. Subsequently, Ext.P7 notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Arrear Recovery), the 1 st respondent herein, requiring the petitioner to pay the collection charges for the amount recovered from the petitioner, as contemplated under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 and the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968. This demand is under challenge in this writ petition and the reliefs sought by the petitioner are as follows: “i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext. P7 letter issued by the 2 nd respondent to the 1st respondent. ii) To declare that collection charges under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 and Rules made thereunder can not be demanded when payment is effected as adjustment from Land acquisition compensation, as per the directions of the court; iii) To declare that collection charges under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 and Rules made thereunder can not be demanded when the amount is paid directly to the department concerned (requisition authority) as part of OTS/ Amnesty Scheme; iv) to direct the 4th and 5th respondent to accept the land tax of the properties owned by the petitioner in Sy. No. 75-1-2/17 and 75-1/16 of Kalluvathukkal Village in Kollam district through online mode; v) To pass such other order as this Hon’ble court deems justified in the fact ad circumstances of the case; vi) To award the cost of the proceeding to the Petitioner; AND vii) To dispense with the production of English translation of the documents marked in the case which are in vernacular language.” 5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent controverting the averments contained in the writ petition and opposing the reliefs sought. An additional counter affidavit was also submitted by the 1st respondent, producing the copies of the demand notice and attachment notice issued to the assessee, the Company in which the petitioner was the Director, and also furnished the details of the various steps taken by the respondents for recovering the said amount. The copy of the request made by the Recovery Officer to the Land Acquisition Officer, to retain the amounts, was also produced. Thus, respondents sought to dismiss the said writ petition, on the above grounds. 6. Heard Sri Raju Joseph, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Adv.Bobby John, who appeared for the petitioner and Sri.Mohammed Rafiq, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, the demand of collection charges is not legally sustainable in view of the fact that, the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- appropriated towards arrears of tax payable by the Company, was not through the machinery of the Revenue Recovery. It was pointed out that, the same was appropriated, based on the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment, as the entire amount payable to the petitioner by way of compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act was withheld by the Land Acquisition Authority. Thus, the contention is that, as far as Rs.50,00,000/- referred to above is concerned, no machinery under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act was put into use, for realizing the said charges, and hence the collection charges, as contemplated under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, cannot be demanded. The learned Senior Counsel places reliance upon the decisions rendered by this Court in Vijayan N.P. v. Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Thalassery and Others [2012(4)KHC 151] and Kadeeja Beevi v.Kerala Financial Corporation [1985 KLT 741] . Apart from the above, learned Senior Counsel also brought the attention of this Court to the Circular bearing No.REV- H3/271/2024-REV dated 01.12.2024. According to the learned Senior Counsel, as per the said Circular, in respect of the cases prior to the introduction of the Kerala Revenue Recovery( Amendment) Act, 2024, the collection charges need not be collected, in respect of the amounts recovered otherwise than through the modes of Revenue Recovery proceedings. 8. According to the learned Senior Counsel, as per the said Circular, in respect of the cases prior to the introduction of the Kerala Revenue Recovery( Amendment) Act, 2024, the collection charges need not be collected, in respect of the amounts recovered otherwise than through the modes of Revenue Recovery proceedings. 8. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader placed reliance upon a recent decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery) v. Lakshmi Hotels and Resorts [ 2024 KHC Online 1543 ], wherein, this Court, after referring to the various decisions rendered by this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court, and also after referring to the statutory provisions contained in the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and the Rules made thereunder, observed that, the collection charges are to be recovered in cases where the recovery was made towards the tax arrears. It was pointed out that, in the said decision, a clear distinction was drawn by this Court, with respect to the collection charges in connection with proceedings of the recovery for realizing the amounts payable to the institutions coming under Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and the recovery proceedings for realizing the tax payable directly to the Government. 9. I have carefully gone through the records, statutory provisions and also the decisions relied on by either side. While examining the relevant statutory stipulations, it is to be noted that, Section 2 (bb) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 , (hereinafter referred to as the Act), defines the “collection charges” in the manner as follows: “(bb) “collection charges” means and includes any amount payable by the defaulter to the Government, at such rate as may be prescribed by the Government in this behalf, for the realisation of amounts due under the provisions of this Act;” Section 2 (d) of the Act defines “Cost of Process” as follows: “(d) “cost of process” includes- (i) the batta paid under section 76; (ii) the expenses incurred in connection with the attachment of any property and the removal, storing and guarding of any property attached; and the service of the notice under postage ; and (iii) cost of publication of sale” 10. Rule 4 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968 provides the details of the charges to be recovered from the defaulters, along with arrears due, and the said provision reads as follows: “Batta and other charges at the rates specified in Column (2) of the Table below; shall be levied in respect of the item specified against them in column (1) of the said Table. These charges shall be recovered from the defaulters along with the arrears due. 11. Rule 5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules deals with the collection charges payable in respect of the recovery of the amounts receivable by the institutions notified under section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and the said provision reads as follows: (1) Collection charges at the rate of 5 percent of the arrears to be collected under the provisions of the Act on behalf of any institution notified under Section 71 or collected on behalf of any institution under S.68 when the arrears does not exceed Rupees Five Lakhs and at the rate of 7.5% when the arrears exceed Rupees Five Lakhs shall be realised from the defaulters and accounted as arrears to such institutions. (2) The collection charges shall be deducted from the amount recovered and the balance alone shall be payable to the institution. (3) Institutions except Government Departments accepting defaulted payments directly from the defaulter after initiating Revenue Recovery Proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (15 of 1968) and filing the certificate by the District Collector under sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the said Act shall be liable to pay 1% of the amount so collected towards service charge for the initiation of Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the defaulter [and to intimate the fact] of such acceptance to the District Collector concerned at once. 12. The specific case of the petitioner is that, since Rs.50,00,000/- in this case was collected by the respondents, based on the directions issued by this Court, that too from the amounts withheld by the Land Acquisition authorities, the same cannot be treated as a recovery by utilizing the machinery contemplated under the Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, as the recovery was not through the means of the recovery machinery contemplated under the Act, the demand of the collection charges are not legally sustainable, it was contended. Therefore, as the recovery was not through the means of the recovery machinery contemplated under the Act, the demand of the collection charges are not legally sustainable, it was contended. It was to substantiate the said point, the decisions referred to above were relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 13. However, when it comes to the observations made by this Court in Kadeeja’s case (supra), it is true that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, a categorical finding was entered into by this Court that, no collection charges can be recovered in a case where, the amounts were collected otherwise than through the machinery of Revenue Recovery. However, on carefully going through the observations made in Kadeeja’s case, it can be seen that, the said observations were made in a case where, the recovery was sought to be made, for realizing the arrears due to the Kerala Financial Corporation, an institution coming within the scope of Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, relevant provision applicable was, Rule 5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, and not Rule 4 alone, which is applicable in the case of recovery of tax payable to the Government. The conclusion arrived by this Court in Kadeeja’s case was also after referring to the statutory stipulations contained in Rule 5 and particularly Sub Rule 2 of Rule 5, where it is provided that the collection charges are to be deducted from the amount recovered and the balance alone to be payable to the institution. However, when considering the scheme of Rule 4 and 5, it can be seen that, both contemplates different methods and therefore, the observations made by this Court in Kadeeja’s case with specific reference to the stipulations contained in Rule 5, cannot be made applicable to the case at hand, as this case deals with a situation coming under Rule 4, that relates to the collection of tax arrears due to the Government directly. 14. Of course, in Vijayan’s case (supra), a Division Bench of this court, while disposing of a Writ Appeal , issued a direction to the authorities concerned, not to recover the collection charges in respect of the voluntary payment made, based on the interim orders passed by this Court. 14. Of course, in Vijayan’s case (supra), a Division Bench of this court, while disposing of a Writ Appeal , issued a direction to the authorities concerned, not to recover the collection charges in respect of the voluntary payment made, based on the interim orders passed by this Court. However, in the said decision, the question regarding the liability and the corresponding obligations of the parties as well as the authorities, as discernible from the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and the Rules framed thereunder, were not discussed. 15. On the other hand, in the case of Lakshmi Hotels (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, after specifically referring to the statutory stipulations including Rule 4 and the various heads contemplated in the said provision, under which the charges are to be collected, came to a definite finding that, the collection charges are recoverable in a case where, the tax arrears are to be recovered. The distinction between the recovery proceedings for realizing the arrears of an institution coming under Section 71 of the Act and the recovery of the arrears of tax, was also taken note of by this Court in the said decision. Moreover, in Lakshmi Hotel’s case (supra), the Division Bench also considered the decision of yet another Division Bench of this Court in Usha Mary v. Kerala Financial Corporation and other [ 2009 (4) KHC 254 ], wherein, item (viii) in Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules were declared as unreasonable and discriminatory, and ultra vires of the parent Act. It was also taken note of the fact that, Usha Mary’s decision was set aside by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Shibu Kumar [2018 KHC 4653) with an observation that the High Court shall take up cases individually and shall look into the facts of each case to take a decision with regard to the legality of the recovery of the collection charges. In the light of the above, clause (viii) of the Rule 4, and Rule 5 are still remaining in the statute as valid provisions. Thus, the decision in Lakshmi Hotel’s case (supra) clearly covers the situation existing in this case. 16. In the light of the above, clause (viii) of the Rule 4, and Rule 5 are still remaining in the statute as valid provisions. Thus, the decision in Lakshmi Hotel’s case (supra) clearly covers the situation existing in this case. 16. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that, Rule 4 of the Revenue Recovery Rules contemplates various rates at which amounts are to be collected, which, according to him, are separate amounts to be collected, depending upon the various stages of the proceedings at which the recovery could be affected. Therefore, it was contended that, as far as the collection charges @ percentage wise is concerned, that being the last stage as included in clause (viii) of Rule 4, unless all stages are over before recovering the said amount, the collection charges as mentioned in Clause (viii) of Rules 4, cannot be collected. 17. However, in the light of stipulations in Rule 4 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968, read with the definition of “collection charges” and “cost of process” as contemplated under Sections 2 (bb) and 2(d) of the Act respectively, I am not inclined to accept the said contention. This is because, the “collection charges” and “cost of process” are separately defined in the Act and while framing the Rules under the Act, expenses to be recovered under both these heads are separately included in Rule 4; “cost of process” is included in clauses (i) to (vii) and “collection charges” are included in clause (viii) of the Rule 4. 18. Thus, since there are separate definitions for the “collection charges” and “cost of process” as per the Act, I find that those are independent heads, under which, the amounts could be collected. This would mean that, as far as the cost of process to be collected under Rule 4 is concerned, it is covered under Clauses (i) to (vii) in the table therein and the same is intended to recover the expenses for recovery at the rates specified therein, based on the stage at which the recovery was affected, whereas, the collection charges referred to in Clause (viii) in Rule 4 would be recoverable, after the initiation of the proceedings, irrespective of the stage at which recovery was materialized. This is the conclusion arrived by the Division Bench of this Court in Lakshmi Hotel (supra), after referring to the statutory stipulations in the Act and the Rules. Therefore, I am of the view that the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. In the light of the above, it is held that, as far as the recovery of tax is concerned, collection charges are recoverable at the rates specified in clause (viii) of Rule 4 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules 1968, once the recovery proceedings are initiated, irrespective of the stage at which or the mode through which, the recovery was affected. 19. The next aspect highlighted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is with respect to the Circular issued by the Government on 01.12.2024. Of course, it is true that, it refers to the waiver of collection charges in respect of the settlement of arrears, by making direct payment to the requisitioning authority. However, the specific contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader in this regard is that, the operation of the Circular dated 01.12.2024, is confined to a certain situation where, the recovery or the collection of the amounts was based on the settlement contemplated in the Finance Act, 2017. In the said Circular, Section 83D, (the provision that deals with the recovery of collection charges for the amounts collected under the Settlement Schemes, which is newly introduced in the Revenue Recovery Act, as per the Amendment Act, 2024), was specifically referred to and explained. In Clause 2 of the Circular referred to above, taking note of the fact that Section 83D does not have any retrospective application, it was clarified that the collection charges need not be recovered in respect of the cases where, the settlement was under the provisions of the Finance Act, 2017. 20. The learned Special Government Pleader made available the copy of the Finance Act, 2017, wherein, specific provision was incorporated for waiving the collection charges in respect of the amounts collected by way of one time settlement. As far as Rs.50,00,000/-, which is the subject matter in this writ petition is concerned, the same was not under the provisions of any settlement scheme and therefore, the benefits contemplated under the said Circular cannot be extended to the petitioner. As far as Rs.50,00,000/-, which is the subject matter in this writ petition is concerned, the same was not under the provisions of any settlement scheme and therefore, the benefits contemplated under the said Circular cannot be extended to the petitioner. I find no reason to discard the contentions of the learned Special Government Pleader in this regard. 21. Lastly, it was contended by the learned Senior Counsel that, as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the petitioner is entitled to 9% interest for the compensation. It was pointed out that, as the said payment was withheld, based on the instruction issued by the Revenue Authorities, he was deprived of such interest. However, I am of the view that this is a question that need not to be considered in this writ petition, as the issue which comes within the zone of consideration here, is the challenge against the demand collection of charges. Therefore, the said contention is left open and can be raised by the petitioner by initiating appropriate proceedings before the appropriate authority. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise the claim for interest for the belated payment of the compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, before the appropriate authority.