ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

1. Contention of the consumers of the Kerala State Electricity Board that the proceedings initiated against them for recovery of the amounts are in respect of debts, the recovery of which is barred by the law of limitation, has given rise to the writ appeal and writ petitions.

2. When W.P. (C) Nos. 17300 of 2013 and 28558 of 2013 came up before the learned single Judge, doubting the correctness of the judgment in Inspector, Toddy W.W.F. Board vs. Vijayan, 2009 (1) KLT 410, these cases were referred to a Division Bench. The writ petitions and W.A. No. 1848 of 2012 were considered by a Division Bench, which, by its order dated 18th of July, 2014 agreed that the judgment in Vijayan's case (supra) required reconsideration. It is accordingly that these cases are coming up for consideration of the Full Bench.

3. Vijayan's case (supra) arose under the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969. Considering Section 9 of the said Act and the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, a Division Bench of this Court held that the amounts due under the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act is public revenue due and that 30 years provided under Article 112 of the Limitation Act is applicable for its recovery. It is the correctness of these conclusions in the judgment which are to be reconsidered.

4. In Vijayan's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court followed the earlier Division Bench in Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board vs. William Raynold, 2004 (3) KLT 1083, rendered in the context of Section 10 of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act and held thus in para 7 and 8 of the judgment:-

"7. In Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board vs. William Raynold, 2004 (3) KLT 1083, a Division Bench of this Court considered the impact of S.10 of the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. Division Bench held that S.10 of the said Act provides that the arrears due from an employer under the Act could be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of public revenue due on land. It was specifically held that when S.10 declares that the arrears due from an employer under the Act could be recovered in the same manner as arrears of public revenue due on land, it follows that all the provisions of the R.R. Act would become applicable. Division Bench therefore, went on to hold that the arrears due from the employer under the said Act is arrears of public revenue due on land and it could be recovered by resorting to the provisions of the R.R. Act. Division Bench indicated that this is the view that was taken in Baby vs. State of Kerala & Other, 1981 KLT 510.

8. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board vs. William Raynold, 2004 (3) KLT 1083. We take note of the fact that S.9 of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act is in pari material with S.10 of the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. We are of the view that S.9 of the Act, by a fiction declares that the amounts due under the Act are liable to be treated as arrears of land revenue. Thus, by virtue of the declaration made under S.9 of the Act, amounts which are otherwise not land revenue stricto sensu are deemed to be land revenue and recoverable as such. Thus, the period of limitation applicable in relation to the amounts due under the Act will be the period prescribed in relation to the amounts due to the Government. If that be so, the entry applicable in this behalf in relation to amounts due under the Act, would be Art.112 of the Limitation Act, and not Art.113 of the Act. Thus, the longer period of limitation prescribed under the former namely thirty years would be available in relation to the amounts due under the Act, by the virtue of S.9 of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the proceedings initiated in the year 2005, evidenced by Exts.P1 and P3, would not be barred by limitation. We are unable to su