A.M. Shaffique, J.

1. This appeal has been remitted back to this Court by the Supreme Court for fresh disposal, in accordance with law, with the following observations:

"7. In our opinion, in these types of cases, the High Court should have taken up the matters individually and decided whether the State was justified in issuing the demand notices for the purpose of collection charges as well as service charges under Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules.

8. In view of the above, we set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand the matters to the High Court for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. We also request the High Court to take the cases individually instead of clubbing all the matters and look into the facts of each case and take a positive decision on the pleadings adduced by both the parties."

The Writ Petition was filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein seeking for a direction to the respondents namely Kerala Financial Corporation (for short K.F.C.) and its officers to return an amount of Rs. 9,02,670/- collected from the petitioners as per Ext. P15 receipt dated 25.2.2006 and for a declaration that the 3rd respondent Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Kerala Financial Corporation is not entitled to receive collection charges under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The, averments in the Writ Petition would disclose that the petitioners being a partnership and its partners availed financial assistance from K.F.C. They had also mortgaged certain item of property. Proceedings were taken by K.F.C. under S. 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. Petitioners filed W.P. (C) No. 10396/2004, when notice for sale of property was published. The said Writ Petition was disposed of as the sale did not take place on the said date. It is further contended that K.F.C. granted One Time Settlement (OTS) facility to the petitioners and the petitioners remitted Rs. 81 lakhs with interest at 15% from 01.06.2001. By letter dated 05.08.2005, K.F.C. extended time for payment under the OTS scheme till 30.5.2005. Ext. P4 dated 23.07.2001 is the letter issued by K.F.C. granting OTS facilities. As per Ext. P4, there was a direction to remit R.R. charges, if any payable to RR authorities. It seems that the petitioners did not pay the amount in terms of Ext. P4. Subsequently they submitted Ext. P5 letter to clear the OTS amount at a reduced rate of interest. By another letter dated 05.08.2005 produced as Ext. P6, petitioners were granted time to pay the entire amount at 15% interest from 01.06.2001 on or before 30.10.2005. It is stated that, in the meantime, another notice of sale of immovable property was issued and a newspaper advertisement was also published on 08.12.2005. Petitioners then filed W.P. (C) No. 657/2006 challenging Exts. P7 and P8 notices. Petitioners submit that, in the meantime, the K.F.C. extended time for settlement under OTS till 28.02.2006, but petitioners did not press the Writ Petition and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioners thereafter remitted the entire amount as per separate receipts and the entire liability towards K.F.C. was closed within the time fixed. The petitioners thereafter approached the 3rd respondent to release the attachment on the property. The 3rd respondent demanded Rs. 9,02,670/- towards collection charges. Petitioners were forced to pay the collection charges for releasing the attachment and out of compulsion, petitioners paid the said amount. The attachment was released consequently, Petitioners demanded the said amount as per the letter dated 06.07.2006 and since no action was taken by K.F.C. the Writ Petition was filed.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent inter alia stating that the District Collector, Ernakulam had authorized the 3rd respondent as per requisition dated 18.01.2002 to collect Rs. 1,26,59,354/- with i