The petitioner availed a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) from the Kerala Financial Corporation for the construction of a building for business purpose. Though the petitioner could complete the ground floor of the building he could not complete the entire structure due to paucity of funds and he had to abandon the idea of completing the project. Finding that he would not be able to repay the amount in time, he thought of selling the property and settling the whole amount due to the Corporation. The petitioner approached the Corporation and the latter agreed as per Ext.P1 dated 26-7-2001 to settle the loan account on remittance of Rs.36,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs) by the petitioner. As per Ext.P2 dated 28.12.2001, the petitioner wanted some reduction to be made in the matter of payment of interest. Meanwhile, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated as per Ext.P3. The petitioner approached the Corporation with Ext.P4 representation praying to drop the revenue recovery proceedings and to permit the petitioner to pay the whole balance amount under the One Time Settlement Scheme. That request was accepted by the Kerala Financial Corporation, as evidenced by Ext.P5 letter dated 1.9.2002 whereby the petitioner was permitted to remit a sum of Rs.36,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs) with interest under the O.T.S. Scheme. Ext.P6 receipts would prove that the petitioner paid a sum of Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs in two instalments (i.e. Rupees Four Lakhs on 11.10.2002 and Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs on 21.10.2002).

2. According to the petitioner, the Corporation did not release the documents of title to the petitioner and the Corporation demanded a further payment of Rupees Two Lakhs towards interest for the full and final settlement of the loan account, Ext.P7 shows that the petitioner acceded to the request and paid Rupees Two Lakhs to the Kerala Financial Corporation. The document of title in respect of the mortgaged property was released to the petitioner, but, the petitioner alleges that document of title in respect of another property which was offered as collateral security was not released by the Corporation to the petitioner.

3. Ext.P8 was issued by the Corporation stating that a further sum of Rs.1,90,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand and Five Hundered) should be paid by the petitioner towards the revenue recovery charges and Rs.1.02 lakhs towards reduced interest. The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 and prays for issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3 and 4 (The Kerala Financial Corporation and its District/Chief Manager) to issue necessary directions to the second respondent, Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), for issuing no objection certificate to enable the petitioner to sell the property. There is also a prayer for declaration that the petitioner has fully discharged the liability towards the third respondent Corporation. As per the interim order passed by this Court on 10.1.2003 in C.M.P. No.1615 of 2003, the first respondent Sub Registrar was directed to register the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the purchaser.

4. The petitioner cannot contend that he is not liable to pay Rs.1.02 lakhs as demanded in Ext.P8. The further question is whether the petitioner is liable to pay the revenue recovery charges of Rs.1,90,500/-.

5. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the amount due was paid by the petitioner to the Kerala Financial Corporation directly. The amount was not recovered by recourse to revenue recovery proceedings. In 1985 KLT 741 (Kadeeja Beevi v. Kerala Financial Corporation), this Court took the view that the question of revenue recovery commission or collection charges would arise only when there was collection of arrears under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, on behalf of any institution notified under Section 71 of the Act. In 1996 (2) K.L.J. 253 (Village Industries Development Centre v. Khadi and Village Industries Board). This Cour