V. Giri, J.

The first respondent in Writ Petition No.4976/1996 is the appellant herein. Writ Petition was filed challenging Ext.P1 notice of demand issued by the Welfare Fund Inspector and Ext.P3 notice of attachment issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. The principal ground of challenge in the Writ Petition was that the recovery of amounts due from the writ petitioner was barred under Art.113 of the Limitation Act. Learned single Judge proceeded to hold that the demand made was beyond three years from the date on which the amounts fell due and that therefore, it was time barred. Consequently on the ground that the recovery is barred by limitation, the impugned demands were quashed. It is aggrieved thereby that the present appeal has been filed.

2. Writ petitioner was a contractor of Toddy Shop No.46 of Mamala Range for the year 1987-1988. Advance contribution had to be remitted under the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act. It seems that some amounts were paid. But the entire amounts were not remitted. On 10.11.1995, petitioner received a notice of demand for an amount of Rs.20,344+interest and collection charges stating that the amounts due from the petitioner under the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act was originally determined as per order dated 10.4.1989, that the petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.9,468/-alone and that the balance amount of Rs.20,344/-was due. According to the petitioner, the demand made under Ext.P1 followed by Ext.P3 attachment notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, was barred by limitation. It was contended that if the amounts fell due by an order of determination passed on 10.4.1989, then recovery should have been effected within three years from the said date, under Art.113 of the Limitation Act, that since it was not done, the recovery has become barred by limitation. This contention was accepted by the learned Judge and the Writ Petition was allowed. The Inspector of the Welfare Fund Board challenges the same.

3. Weheard learned counsel on either side.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the view taken by the learned single Judge that the debt has become time barred is unsustainable. That the learned single Judge should have found that in terms of S.9 of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, the amounts due under the Act assumes the character of public revenue due on land. Consequently it is liable to be treated as dues to the Government. Longer period of limitation is available insofar as Government dues are concerned. Insofar as the amounts due to the Government is concerned, the period of Limitation would be thirty years instead of three years as per Art.112 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that amounts due to the Toddy Workers Welfare Board cannot be treated as amounts due to the Government. Therefore, the period of limitation available is only three years under Art.113 of the Limitation Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. V.R. Kallianikutty (1999 (2) KLT 146 (SC), wherein the Court held that the Revenue Recovery Act does not create any new right. It merely provides a process for speedy recovery of moneys due. The persons claiming recovery, cannot claim recovery of amounts-which are not legally recoverable, merely by taking recourse to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.

6. Learned Judge of this Court in Baby v. State of Kerala & Ors. (1981 KLT 510) observed that the money due under the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act is not public revenue due on land. But the object of the R.R. Act is to recover not only public revenue due on land but also all other amounts declared to be recoverable under the Act and that the money due under the Welfare Fund Act is of that character. A Division Bench of this Court in Subbadra v. State of Kerala & Ors. (AIR 1995 Ker. 245) went on to hold that there cannot be any doubt regarding the applicability of the provisi