The petitioner is aggrieved with the revenue recovery proceedings issued as per Ext.P3, which according to the petitioner is not maintainable for reason of there being no demand raised by the respondent Bank. The brief facts are that the petitioner had availed of two loans from the 4th respondent Bank. Admittedly, on obvious reasons, of the interest on loan being excessive, the petitioner himself sought for taking over of the said loans by the 1st respondent herein. As submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Bank, the loans were taken over on the request made by the petitioner and on loan documents being separately executed for both the said loans. 2. The petitioner's only contention against the recovery is that the 4th respondent had informed the petitioner that both the loans are clubbed together. Such impression projected by the petitioner is belied by the fact that the 1st respondent Bank asserts that two applications were made and two set of documents were executed, one for each of the loan accounts. Admittedly one of the loans was a housing loan and the other an agricultural loan. The statement that the agricultural loan was closed and had merged with the housing loan account are mutually conflicting claims, which are on the face of it self-defeating.
3. Further, there was an Adalath notified to the petitioner as per Ext.P2, in which the petitioner was specifically intimated the amounts due in the agricultural loan, the number of which and the amount availed were shown separately in Ext.P2 notice. The petitioner was also intimated of the revenue recovery notice earlier. The petitioner appeared for the Adalath and paid 10% as stipulated therein. But however, later on, the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of the scheme formulated by the respondent Bank for One Time Settlement (OTS). In such circumstance, the OTS was also declined. Hence, the respondent Bank surged ahead with the revenue recovery proceedings, which was notified earlier and which is evident from Ext.P2 notice issued by the respondent Bank to the petitioner. The averments made in the petition are self-serving averments, not substantiated and unsustainable per-se. In such circumstance, there can be no challenge validly raised against the revenue recovery notice issued as per Ext.P3.
4. However, considering the impecunious circumstance pleaded by the petitioner, the petitioner shall be granted 8 monthly instalments starting from 24.07.2014. The respondent-Bank shall quantify the dues as on 15.07.2014 and issue a statement of accounts, in accordance with which the instalments shall be paid. The 1st instalment shall be paid on or before 24.07.2014 and thereafter; the due date of instalments falling on the 24th of each succeeding month. If default is committed in two consecutive instalments, then the recovery proceedings shall revive and continue. On the satisfaction of the dues as per the statement, the Bank shall give a statement of the future interest from 15.07.2014 and the same shall be settled as the 9th instalment.
The Writ Petition is found to be devoid of merit, and the same is dismissed, but with the grant of instalments as above.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
SB