1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the standing counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

2. In 1995, the petitioner availed of a loan of Rs.57,000/-from respondents 3 and 4. He committed default and even according to respondents 3 and 4 requisition under Section 69(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act was issued for realising dues, only in the year 2007. Pursuant to the said requisition, Exts.P4 and P5 under the Revenue Recovery Act were issued for recovering Rs.1,84,198/-. It is challenging the recovery proceedings, the writ petition is filed.

3. Two contentions are raised. The first contention is that the petitioner has already paid the entire amount due and therefore, the recovery proceedings are illegal. This contention of the petitioner is answered in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4, which reads thus:

"The various grounds urged in the writ petition are not tenable. The petitioner has only repaid an amount of Rs.27,780/-towards the loan account. The petitioner has not paid any amount after August, 1997. A sum of Rs.1,84,198/-was outstanding as balance as on 24.01.2008 and the respondents 3 and 4 are entitled to realise the same from the petitioner and his assets."

4. In the light of the above averments in the counter affidavit, I am unable to accept the case of the petitioner that the entire liability has been discharged.

5. The second contention raised is that the debt is a time barred one and therefore, cannot be recovered. This contention of the petitioner is answered by respondents 3 and 4 relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Godan Namboothiripad v. Kerala Financial Corporation, Vellayambalam and others(AIR 1998 Kerala 31), where it has been held as follows:

"Even if it is assumed that the Limitation Act is applicable, the amount due to the institution notified under Section 71 of the K.R.R. Act is treated on a par with the amounts due to the Government in terms of Section 68 and as such Article 112 of the Limitation Act shall govern the case. It provides a period of 30 years as the period of limitation for filing suits to recover the amount due to Government. In view of this Full Bench decision, the finding of the Board of Revenue and the State Government on this issue in Exts.P2 and P4 therefore, cannot be sustained."

6. Therefore, counsel contended that since their institution is notified under Section 71, they are entitled to the extended period of limitation of 30 years as provided under Article 112 of the Limitation Act. Counsel also relied on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Inspector, Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board v. Vijayan (2009 (1) KLT 410), where also similar view was taken.

7. However, having considered the submissions made, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. Respondents have no case that if the extended period of limitation is not applicable, the requisition was within the period of limitation as provided under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, which provides for 3 years. A Division Bench of this Court in A.K. Nanu and others v. State of Kerala and others(1987(2) KLT 921) held that debts barred by limitation cannot be recovered by taking recourse to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. That judgment of the Division Bench was reversed by a Full Bench of this Court in Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd. v. P.S. John and others (1996(1) KLJ 540). In that judgment, the Full Bench took the view that the limitation Act has applicability only to courts and not to proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is following this judgment, the Division Bench judgment in Godan Namboothiripad's case was decided. Appeals were filed against the Full Bench judgment and the Apex Court disposed of the matters by its judgment in State of Kerala v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty(1999(2) KLT 146), where the Full Bench judgment was reversed. It wa