Shaffique, J. The appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P(C) No.
24633/2009 challenging the judgment dated 21-7-2014.
2. The challenge is with reference to Ext. P3 and further proceedings relating to the same. Ext. P3 is an order dated 26.5.2009 issued by the District Collector calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 15,77,685/-. By Ext. P3, the amount due is shown payable during the period 1981-1982. It also refers to revenue recovery notice No. L1/50238/81 dated 19.5.2009 by the District Collector, Chennai. The petitioner submitted Ext. P4 representation to the District Collector, Thrissur as well as Chennai, intimating them that no details are available in respect of the amount demanded. Since no further action was taken in the matter, the writ petition was filed inter alia contending that no amount was due to the State of Tamil Nadu and therefore there is no liability to pay any amount. Further, it is contended that the petitioner's father was a defaulter for Abkari dues in State of Kerala, which was already settled. The present demand has been made after 29 years in respect of which no details are forthcoming.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent giving the particulars of the amounts due. It is contended that the requisition of the District Collector, Chennai under Section 3(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act), was received by the District Collector, Thrissur. Therefore, steps have been taken to realize the arrears in accordance with the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. In respect of the amount due, an abstract has been provided in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit detailing the manner in which computation has been made for recovery of Rs.15,77,685/-.
4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition proceeding on the basis that there was no deliberate laches on the part of the District Collector, Chennai in proceeding with the recovery, especially since the defaulter was a resident of State of Kerala and dues were with reference to the Abkari business conducted in the State of Tamil Nadu and the District Collector, Thrisur is bound to recover the amount in terms of the provisions of the Act.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant however contends that the particulars of the amounts have not been stated in the notice and therefore notice issued by the District Collector is bad in law.
6. Apparently, this is an instance where the requisition had been made by the District Collector, Chennai under Section 3(1) of the Central Act, which reads as under:
“3. Recovery of public demands by enforcement of process in other districts than those in which thet become payable:- (1) Where an arrear of land-revenue or a sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue is payable to a Collector by a defaulter being or having property in a district other than that in which the arrear accrued or the sum is payable, the Collector may send to the Collector of that other district a certificate in the form as nearly as may be of the Schedule, stating--
(a) the name of the defaulter and such other particulars as may be necessary for his identification and
(b) the amount payable by him and the account on which it is due.
xx xx xx”
In fact, Section 4 provides remedy to a person denying liability to pay the amount sought to be recovered. The petitioner did not avail of the opportunity available under Section 4. As far as the requisition issued by the Chennai Collector is concerned, it is received by the District Collector, Thrissur. Even under Section 69(5) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, a demand made or received shall be conclusive proof as regards the amount due. Therefore, as far as the District Collector, Thrissur is concerned, the said authority cannot interfere with the recovery certificate issued by the District Collector, Chennai.
7. The learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition, especially due to the fact that the amounts due have been clearly indicated in the counter affidavit. Under such circumstances, we do not think that we will be justified in interfering with the recovery proceedings initiated against the property of the petitioner. No grounds are made out for such interference.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Tds/ Sd/-
Ashok Bhushan, Ag. Chief Justice Sd/-
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.