Kerala High Court
Unknown vs R.K.Prasad
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2012/13TH POUSHA 1933
WPC.No. 34768 of 2011 (U)
=========================
PETITIONER(S)
=============
1 R.K.PRASAD
S.O A.RAJAPPAN NAIR
THIRU ONAM
SASTHAMANGALAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV.SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN
SRI.A.S.SHAMMY RAJ
SRI.P.SHANES
RESPONDENT(S)
=============
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (REVENUE) SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
2 COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING
MUSEUM
THIRUVANNTHAPURAM- 695 002.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
4 TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
5 DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
W.P.(C).34768/11
-2-
6 TRIVANDRUM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TRIDA)
JAYA MANSION
VAZHATHACAUD (RO)
THIRUVANNATHAPURAM- 695 012.
7 THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
THIURVANNTHAPURAM- 695 001.
8 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
VYDHUDHI BHAVAN
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL
SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03-01-2012 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).34768/11
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
P1- TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE CERTIFYING THE DEATH OF
SHRI.A.RAJAPPAN NAIR ON 12.11.2011
P2- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE AND ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY UNDER
SECTION 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 9.10.09 ISSUED BY 5TH
RESPONDENT
P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.P2 SENT BY PETITIONER'S FATHER
SRI.A.RAJAPPAN NAIR ON 26.10.09
P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.9.11 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN
REVISION PETITION NO.50311 OF 2009
P5- TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY 6TH RESPONDENT IN REVISON
PETITION NO.50311 OF 2009 DATED 6.4.10
P6- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENTTO 6TH
RESPONDENT GIVEN TO LATE RAJAPPAN NAIR DATED 5.12.09
P7- TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED EXECUTED ON 21.8.01 BETWEEN TRIDA AND
SHRI.A.RAJAPPAN NAIR
P8- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.5.02 SENT BY SHRI.A.RAJAPPAN NAIR TO
THE SECRETARY, TRIDA
P9- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.8.02 SENT BY SRI.A.RAJAPPAN NAIR TO
THE SECRETARY, TRIDA.
P10- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.5.03 SENT BY SRI.A.RAJAPPAN NAIR TO
THE SECRETARY, TRIDA
P11- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.8.04 SENT BYSECRETARY, TRIDA TO
SRI.A.RAJAPPAN NAIR
P12- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.10.04 SENT BY SECRETARY, TRIDA TO
SRI.A.RAJAPPAN NAIR
P13- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.2.07 SENT BY SECRETARY, TRIDA TO
SRI.A.RAJAPPAN NAIR
P14- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14.3.07 SENT BY A.RAJAPPAN NAIR TO THE
SECRETARY, TRIDA
P15- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.6.08 SENT BY SRI.A.RAJAPPAN NAIR TO
THE SECRETARY, TRIDA
P16- TRUE COPYOF THE LETTER DATED 25.6.08 SENT BY SRI.A.RAJAPPAN NAIR,
TRIDA.
/true copy/ PA To Judge
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
.......................................................
W.P.(C).34768/2011
..............................................
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2012
JUDGMENT
Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4, an order passed by the second respondent exercising his powers under Section 83 of the Kerala revenue Recovery Act in a revision filed by late Rajappan Nair, the father of the petitioner.
2. It appears that the petitioner's deceased father was a tenant of the sixth respondent in a building known as 'Vishram Sanketh' for the period from 21.8.2001 to 19.8.2002 and that for recovery of electricity and water charges, proceedings were initiated and the liability was discharged by the sixth respondent. Thereafter, for realizing the amount thus remitted, recovery proceedings were initiated, which resulted in Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 7 read with Section 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.
3. According to the petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P2, his father filed Ext.P3 objection and Tahsildar issued Ext.P6 notice calling for the comments of the sixth respondent. It is stated that the Tahsildar did not conduct any enquiry as contemplated under Section 34(2) or W.P.(C).34768/11 2 passed any order as mentioned therein. However, petitioner's father filed a revision before the second respondent under Section 83(1) of the Act. Parties were heard on various occasions and finally Ext.P4 order was passed by the revisional authority on 14.9.2011 rejecting the revision.
4. Subsequent to Ext.P4 order, petitioner's father expired on 12.11.2011 and Ext.P1 is the death certificate. It is thereafter that this writ petition has been filed contending that on receipt of Ext.P3 objection, an enquiry as contemplated under Section 34(2) was not conducted and that no order was passed and that in the absence of any such enquiry or an order, the whole revenue recovery proceedings are illegal. Therefore, petitioner wants Ext.P4 to be quashed and the matter remitted to the Tahasildar
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, I confess my inability to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even if it is assumed that an order under Section 34 of the Act was not passed, it was the petitioner's father who filed the revision without awaiting for the Tahasildar to pass an order W.P.(C).34768/11 3 under Section 34 of the Act. Therefore, having opted for that course, it is not now open to the petitioner to contend that in the absence of an order under Section 34 of the Act, the order passed in the revision illegal. That apart, petitioner has not pleaded or proved that any prejudice has been caused to him due to absence of order under Section 34 of the Act.
6. It was then contended that the debt even if due, was for the period when his father was in occupation of the premises. It is stated that any recovery at this distance of time, is time barred in the light of the principles laid down in the judgment in State of Kerala v. V.R.Kalliyanikutty (1999 (2) KLT, 146), and therefore, the amount cannot be recovered.
7. However in Ext.P4 order, it has been stated thus:-
"After the tenure of the lease period, the KSEB and Water Authority has forwarded arrear bill in consumer No.4517009565 and KPM/6832/N for Rs. 4,13,952/- and Rs.4,63,875/- respectively. TRIDA obtained detailed and split up bill for the period during which Sri.Rajappan Nair was on lease Vishram Sanketh. In the split up detail submitted by KSEB on 18.12.2007 arrear for the period 21.8.2011 to 19.8.2002 comes to Rs.1,45,217/-
W.P.(C).34768/11
4
and the water authority arrear comes to
Rs.1,61,777/-. Notice was issued from TRIDA to the Revision Petitioner for remitting the arrear water and electrical charges on 21.5.2008. The TRIDA has remitted the whole amount on March 31st, 2008 availing the one time settlement facility, declared by the KSEB and water authority from TRIDA's own fund and reinstalled the water and electrical connections. Hence request forwarded to the District Collector to recover an amount of Rs.5,11,426/- through RR steps."
8. From the above, it can be seen that the amount due from the petitioner's father towards the electricity charges and water charges was paid by the TRIDA only in March, 2008. Therefore, the recovery proceedings initiated by Ext.P2 dated 9.10.2009 cannot be said to be time barred for any reason.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not in a position to accept the contention of the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs