JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. Since both these writ petitions challenge the very same proceedings they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioner along with two others started a firm in the year 2015. A financial assistance to the tune of Rs.16,94,000/- was availed from the Kerala Financial Corporation, which is an interest free loan for a period of five years. The remittance of the principal amount was defaulted by the petitioner. Recovery proceedings were initiated and Ext.P1 order of attachment was effected on the properties hypothecated by the petitioner. While so, Ext.P2 notice was issued intimating that the persons who intend to settle the loan by way of one time settlement has to reach the concerned branch before 18 th April to 21 st April. Pursuant to Ext.P2 notice the managing partner of the firm has sent Ext.P3 letter informing that he will be appearing before the adalath to be held on 08.05.2018. Subsequently in July 2018 the 2 nd respondent contacted the managing partner to meet him in the office. Thereupon the petitioner appeared before the 2 nd respondent and the 1 st respondent directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-, as compromise settlement advance and the same was deposited on 28.07.2018. Again as contacted by the 2 nd respondent the managing partner and one Mr.Binoy K. Mani appeared before him on 08.11.2018 and submitted a request as per Ext.P4 letter intimating their option to clear the loan amount either by one time settlement or in instalments. The exact amount to be paid under the OTS scheme was not informed to the petitioner by any written communication, but they orally directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.12,02,500/-. While the partners of the firm were awaiting for a written reply to the letter, Ext.P5 communication was issued stating that, since the firm was not prepared to remit the minimum amount for compromise settlement and hence the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- deducting 7.5% as R.R. commission will be adjusted against the loan account. On receipt of Ext.P5 the 2 nd respondent was again contacted, and issued Ext.P6 letter intimating that they are ready to settle that loan under one time settlement and by remitting an amount of Rs.12,15,053/-. On receipt of Ext.P5 the 2 nd respondent was again contacted, and issued Ext.P6 letter intimating that they are ready to settle that loan under one time settlement and by remitting an amount of Rs.12,15,053/-. Subsequently as instructed by the 2 nd respondent an amount of Rs.10,75,053/- was paid thus making a total remittance of Rs.12,15,053/- which is inclusive of 1% collective charge. Thereafter respondents 2 and 4 contacted the managing partner and directed him to make a demand draft for an amount of Rs.12,310/- in favour of SBI account, Government of Kerala towards collection charges as provided under Rule 5(3) of the Revenue Recovery Rules. Pursuant to the said direction demand draft was taken as evident from Exts.P7 and P8, and Ext.P9 note file would reveal that the amount due including 1% revenue recovery commission has been paid by the petitioners towards compromise settlement. Thereupon petitioner requested respondents 2 and 4 to lift the attachment and issue NOC as the entire amount due to the KFC has been repaid under one time settlement. As the attachment was not lifted the managing partner again submitted Ext.P10 representation before the KFC and Ext.P11 representation before the Government. The District Legal Service Authority was also moved. Ultimately Ext.P14 representation was given to the 3 rd respondent requesting to take steps to lift the attachment and drop all revenue recovery proceedings. 3. Subsequently properties of one of the managing director was lifted as evident from Ext.P15. Thereafter the 5 th respondent issued Ext.P17 letter to the managing partner showing that attachment over the property of Binoy K. Mani was lifted as the entire loan is closed. A perusal of Ext.P17 would reveal that the Deputy Tahsildar (RR), KFC, Ernakulam as per Letter No.OTE 59/2017-RR-KFC has intimated that the loan has been closed, and therefore attachment has been lifted. While so, by Ext.P18 the KFC intimated the managing partner of Ext.P18 communication that Rs.87,000/- more is required for settling the amount as per the one time settlement scheme. Later, Ext.P19 communication was issued intimating that since the amount of Rs.87,000/- was not paid the benefit of one time settlement is lost and therefore the petitioner has to remit an amount of Rs.3,78,658/- towards loan account. Petitioner would submit that the entire act of the KFC and its officers are absolutely, arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. Later, Ext.P19 communication was issued intimating that since the amount of Rs.87,000/- was not paid the benefit of one time settlement is lost and therefore the petitioner has to remit an amount of Rs.3,78,658/- towards loan account. Petitioner would submit that the entire act of the KFC and its officers are absolutely, arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. After having paid the whole amount as per the one time settlement scheme, issuance of Exts.P18 and P19 are arbitrary and unjust, wherein further amounts were demanded by the Kerala Financial Corporation. The specific case of the petitioner is that the total amount due under the one time settlement is Rs.12,15,053/- which was remitted in full as final settlement including 1% collection charge and that the subsequent demand for Rs.87,000/- as per Ext.P18 and the demand for Rs.3,78,008/- as per Ext.P19 is absolutely arbitrary and unjust. Petitioner would submit that the District Collector as per Exts.P20 and P24 has sought for clarification from the Deputy Tahsildar, KFC as to how 1% collection charge was collected from the petitioners if there was no compromise settlement. But no answer has been given by the authorities till date. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Kerala Financial Corporation, wherein it is admitted that the borrower remitted an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- as compromise settlement advance on 28.07.2018, but delayed further payment by submitting representation after representation, and thereupon they lost the benefit of the one time settlement. Therefore they will have to pay the amount actually due, and thereupon Ext.P19 communication was issued. It is further submitted that since the amount due as per the one time settlement was not paid in full by the petitioner, the revenue recovery proceedings has not been withdrawn and the proceedings are still in force. It is true that the petitioner has approached the Government by filing a complaint, and an explanation was called for, and Ext.R1(f) reply was given stating that, towards one time settlement an amount of Rs.87,000/- more is to be paid. It is further stated that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner has preferred another complaint before the respondents regarding the lifting of the attachment over the personal properties in view of the petitioner’s remittance towards the compromise settlement. It is further stated that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner has preferred another complaint before the respondents regarding the lifting of the attachment over the personal properties in view of the petitioner’s remittance towards the compromise settlement. After hearing the 4 th respondent and petitioner, the 3 rd respondent passed Ext.R1(i) order directing the 4 th respondent to retain the attachment over 7.29 ares of property belonging to the petitioner in view of the balance outstanding, and ordered to lift the attachment in respect of his other properties. On the basis of the same, it is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the amount has been settled for an amount of Rs.12,15,053/- as per one time settlement scheme is without any basis. It is further submitted that the balance amount due as per the one time settlement scheme is Rs.87,000/- as on 05.02.2019 and this was intimated to the petitioners as per Ext.P18, but since the said amount was not remitted the benefit of one time settlement is lost to the petitioner and the petitioners are liable to pay the actual amount due under the loan account. 5. Similar contention was raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.11895 of 2022. 6. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. 7. Though the Kerala Financial Corporation has taken a stand that the one time settlement request made by the petitioner has not been approved yet by the Corporation, and that the contention of the petitioner that the amount has been settled for an amount of Rs.12,15,053/- is without any basis, it is to be seen that by Ext.P8 1% collection charge was remitted by the Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery attached to the Kerala Financial Corporation and not by the petitioners. So when the Deputy Tahsildar (RR) attached to the Kerala Financial Corporation remits the said amount of 1% of the collection charge, naturally, it has to be presumed that the same has been remitted after the matter has been settled in the one time settlement scheme. Further a perusal of Ext.P17 reply under the Right to Information Act also would reveal that as per Communication No.OTE.59/2017-RR-KFC issued by the Deputy Tahsildar (RR) KFC the loan account has been closed. Further a perusal of Ext.P17 reply under the Right to Information Act also would reveal that as per Communication No.OTE.59/2017-RR-KFC issued by the Deputy Tahsildar (RR) KFC the loan account has been closed. Going by Rule 5(3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, when revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated, but the matter has been settled, and the amount has been recovered pursuant to a settlement, the collection charge to be paid is only 1%. When Exts.P8, P9 and P17 are considered along with Rule 9(3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, especially taking note of the fact that the collection charge of 1% was remitted to the Government treasury not by the petitioner, but by the Deputy Tahsildar (RR) attached to the Kerala Financial Corporation, it gives an indication that the amount has been settled between the parties under one time settlement scheme. Though there is no formal orders issued, it is the contention of the petitioners that they have remitted the amount as directed by the Kerala Financial Corporation. Rule 5(3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules reads as follows:- “Rule 5(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.]” 8. The Division Bench of this Court in Malabar Organics Ltd. v. State of Kerala [ 2009 (4) KLT 328 ] has considered the role of the Deputy Tahsildar (RR) attached to KFC and held as follows:- “6. As far as K.F.C and K.S.F.E are concerned, it is brought to our notice that those institutions have their own machinery of recovery, by utilizing the service of officers on deputation from the Government. It is submitted that the entire expenses including salary and maintenance of the establishment are met by the Corporation and the Enterprises. If that be so, there is no justification in realizing the service charges from K.F.C or K.S.F.E in terms of R.5(3). It is submitted that the entire expenses including salary and maintenance of the establishment are met by the Corporation and the Enterprises. If that be so, there is no justification in realizing the service charges from K.F.C or K.S.F.E in terms of R.5(3). What is permissible is only recovery of the expenses provided under Items (i) to (viii) in the table under R.4.” Therefore, as regards the recovery process of KFC and KSFE are concerned, those institutions have their own machinery for recovery by utilising the service of the officers on deputation from the Government, and the entire expenses including salary and maintenance of the establishment are met by the Corporation and the Enterprises. It is in this context, Exts.P8 and P9 assumes importance, inasmuch as it is issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery who is attached to the KFC itself, unlike in the other cases of recovery proceedings invoking Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act. 9. Yet another aspect to be noted is that in Ext.P9 the Deputy Tahsildar (LR), Kerala Financial Corporation has entered in the file note that the amount due towards one time settlement has been remitted by the petitioners i.e. Rs.1,40,000/- remitted on 28.07.2018 towards compromise settlement, Rs.10.75 lakhs remitted on 27.12.2018 and RR commission for an amount of Rs.12,12,310/-. It is also to be noted is that, even in the communications issued by the Kerala Financial Corporation, especially Ext.P18 in WP(C) No.3175 of 2021 the intimation issued itself would reveal that only an amount of Rs.87,000/- is due towards “one time settlement”. Similar communication is produced as Ext.P8 in WP(C) No.11895 of 2020, wherein also the KFC has stated that the amount due is as per the “one time settlement”. When the Kerala Financial Corporation in its communication itself used the word ‘the amount due towards the one time settlement’, only for the reason that they have not issued a formal order, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the KFC that there is no one time settlement, especially after receiving the amounts from the petitioners including 1% collection charge which is remitted to the Government by the Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery attached to the Kerala Financial Corporation. It is also pertinent to note that the communication issued by the District Collector as Exts.P23 and P24 addressed to the Kerala Financial Corporation specifically regarding the fact as to how 1% collection charge was accepted without a compromise settlement with the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the same has not been answered by the KFC to the District Collector yet. In view of the rival contentions raised by both sides, wherein the Kerala Financial Corporation has taken a stand that there is no approved order under the one time settlement scheme, and the claim of the petitioners based on the records produced in their writ petitions that one time settlement was accepted by the KFC, and as directed by them they have remitted the amount in full, I am of the view that the matter requires consideration in detail by a competent authority. Since revenue recovery proceedings have already been initiated and the District Collector has issued Exts.P23 and P24 communications to KFC, I am of the view that the District Collector, Ernakulam, the 3 rd respondent in WP(C) No.3175 of 2021 should independently consider the claim raised by the petitioner as well as the KFC in this regard and finalise the same. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition as follows:- Petitioners shall file appropriate complaint in this regard before the 3 rd respondent, District Collector, Ernakulam producing all the relevant documents and judgments in their support within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, the 3 rd respondent shall after hearing the petitioner and the Kerala Financial Corporation including the Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery attached to the Kerala Financial Corporation and any other necessary parties shall take a decision on the complaint to be filed by the petitioners as directed above, in accordance with law, without any delay, at any rate within an outer limit of four months thereafter. Till a decision is taken as directed above, the interim order granted in WP(C) No.3175 of 2021 staying all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P18 and P19 shall continue.