Balasubramanyan, J.

W. A. No. 76 of 1990 is filed by the Kerala Fisheries Corporation Lid., an institution specified under S.71 of the Revenue Recovery Act, hereinafter called 'the Act' as per Notification dt.19.12.1972 and W. A. No. 84 of 1990 is filed by the District Collector and the Tahsildar the authorities under the Act. Respondent No. I in the Writ Appeals, entered into an agreement with the Fisheries Corporation for purchase of fish from the fishermen under the control of the Corporation and to pay the price of the fish to the Corporation on the terms agreed upon by the parties. Though respondent No.1 collected the fish he did not pay the price, inspite of being called upon to do so. The Fisheries Corporation therefore, filled a suit O.S.223 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Kottayam. The said suit was decreed in favour of the Corporation on 29.3.1974 providing for recovery of a sum of Rs. 41823.70 with 6% interest thereon from the date of suit and the costs of suit. The Fisheries Corporation did not execute the decree, but on 13.I.1986, applied to the District Collector for initiation of proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the amounts due to it. On 17.3.1986, the Collector issued the certificate contemplated by S.69(3) of the Act. A demand notice was issued on 20.3.1986. A notice dt. 30.3.1986 proposing to attach the movables was issued to the defaulter which was received by him on 5.4.1986. Contending that the recovery of the amount was barred by limitation, respondents 1 and 2 filed O. P. 3149 of 1986 before this court praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the notices issued under S.34 and S.7 of the Act. The contention was that since the execution of the decree in O.S.223 of 1973 of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Kottayam was barred by limitation, no execution having been initiated prior to 29.3.1986, the Fisheries Corporation was disentitled to recover the amounts due under the said decree. This-was countered by the Fisheries Corporation and by the officials under the Act, by contending that the Revenue Recovery Act does not provide any time limit for initiation of proceedings for recovery of amounts due to the Government or to the institutions notified under S.71 of the Act, that in the case On hand, in any event, proceedings under the Act were initiated on 13.I.1986 well before 29.3.1996 on which date the execution of the decree would become barred under the Limitation Act, that the certificate under S.69(3) of the Act itself was issued by the Collector on 17.3.1986 and the notice of demand Ext. P2 under S.34 of the Act was itself issued on 20.3.1986 within 12 years of the decree in O. S.223 of 1973 and therefore, in any view of the matter, the proceeding initiated under the Act was in time and was valid. A learned Single Judge by the judgment under appeal, which is reported in P.S. John and another v. The District Collector and others (1989(2) KLT 831), look the view that since the notice of demand under S.7 of the Act was served on the defaulter only on 5.4.1986, beyond 12 years of the dale of the decree in O. S.223 of 1973, the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act could not be taken to be within 12 years of the decree and since the amount due to the Financial Corporation could not. be recovered in execution, in view of the relevant Article in the Limitation Act, 1963, initiation of proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act has also to be held to be unsustainable. In that view, the learned Single Judge quashed (he proceedings under the Act. The learned Single Judge also relied on the decision in Nanu aril others v. State of Kerala (1987 (2) KLT 921) in support of his conclusion. The correctness of this "decision is questioned in these writ Appeals. v

2. In O. P. Nos. 10643 of 1989 and 2880 of. 1990, the petitioners therein challenge the initiation of proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act on the irpleatlial Uienolice under the