The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated under Ext.P4. The petitioner in the writ petition claims that he had availed of a loan of Rs.1,75,000/-in the year 1997 and proceedings taken by Ext.P4 cannot be sustained for reason of the same being barred by limitation. The petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in State of Kerala v. Y.R Kalliyanikutty [1999(2)KLT146] and of this Court in [2002(2)KLT 834] Annamma Jose v. Kerala Financial Corporation to contend that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 beyond the period of limitation is incompetent.
2. The learned counsel for the first respondent, however, contends that the revenue recovery was initiated in the year 2000 itself, as admitted by the petitioner in the writ petition and the same was found to be within the period of limitation in a judgment of this Court. In fact, in the writ petition, but for speaking of a revenue recovery proceedings in the year 2000 and the disposal of a writ petition filed against such recovery; nothing has been stated further. Hence, this Court directed production of the judgment in the disposed off writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed I.A No.7539/2014, producing the same as Ext.P5.
3. Ext.P5 was a challenge made against the revenue recovery proceedings in the year 2001. On admission, this Court granted an interim stay on condition of remittance of Rs. 35,000/-. The petitioner, admittedly, did not comply with the same. Eventually, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing consideration of the representation filed by the petitioner; submitted before the Minister for Industries. It is not clear as to what happened to the representation; in any event, the petitioner has not pursued the same. The judgment in Ext.P5 found that the petitioner is liable to pay the amounts to the respondents. It is also to be noticed that the recovery proceedings were initiated in the year 2000, i.e, within three years from the date of the admitted date of availing of the loans. In such circumstance, the petitioner cannot raise a question of limitation. The afore cited decisions, though interdicted proceedings beyond the period of limitation, on facts, the same is not applicable herein.
4. The petitioner was successfully evading the revenue recovery proceedings till date. The petitioners contention is that the writ petition having been disposed of in 2003, the revenue recovery authority ought to have proceeded with the recovery within a reasonable time. In fact, it was the incumbent duty of the petitioner to have satisfied the liabilities as per the demand in the revenue recovery notice. The petitioner does not have any dispute on the liability as such nor on the computation, except to the extent that the amounts paid, within one year of availing of the loan, being Rs. 15000/- are to be credited to the account. Necessarily the revenue recovery proceedings would have been issued for the balance amount after crediting the remittance. In such circumstance, Ext.P4 revenue recovery proceedings issued in continuance of proceedings taken in the year 2000 cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Ext.P4 is only a notice attaching the properties of the petitioner, effected in pursuance of a recovery taken earlier.
The writ petition, hence, is dismissed. However, considering the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is granted six months time to clear off the entire arrears in six installments. The Petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this judgment to the 2nd respondent, within 2 weeks of receipt of the same. The Revenue Recovery Officer shall compute the amount due along with interest due as on 15.06.2014 and furnish a statement of demand to the petitioner. The petitioner shall remit the same in six monthly installments starting from 10.07.2014 and on every 10th of the succeeding months. On the 6th installment being satisfied, the petitioner shall be issued with a notice for future interest from 15.6.2014, which shall be satisfied as 7th installment on the 10th of the next month. On two consecutive default being committed, the revenue recovery proceedings shall continue against the property. If the above directions are complied with the revenue recovery proceedings shall be closed.
Writ petition dismissed with the above observations.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge