IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
C.S. VARKEY – Petitioner
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 29817 of 2012
Decided On : 23-02-2023
Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 - Section 69 (2), (6), 7, 71 - Right to Information Act - Indian Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 137, 112 - Challenge final determination orders - Re-assess welfare fund contribution - Challenged final determination orders referred, by Ext.P2 order set aside final determination orders with observation that case requires fresh determination and directed 4th respondent, DEO to re-assess welfare fund contribution – A modified requisition under Section 69(6) presupposes the existence of a requisition under Section 69(2).
Findings of the Court:
When final determination orders were set aside, requisition, certificate and demand cannot survive and there exists no requisition or certificate or demand to be modified - Further, same cannot also be considered as fresh requisition since same is not in prescribed form and not verified as mandated under Section 69 (2) of RR Act - Therefore, said contention of learned Senior Government Pleader also fails - It is declared that revenue recovery proceedings against petitioner are barred by limitation and cannot be continued as against him - Land tax in respect of petitioner's property shall be accepted if there are no other impediments.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
1. The petitioner was the owner of a stage carriage bus bearing Registration No. KEK 6397. In respect of the contributions due under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund, a final determination order dated 04.08.1995 for the period 1992-93 for Rs. 8,342/- was served on the petitioner. Later, the District Executive Officer (DEO) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’ for brevity) issued a requisition dated 09.11.1995 in Form 24 under Section 69 (2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RR Act’) to the District Collector for recovery of the said dues. Pursuant thereto, the District Collector issued a demand notice dated 08.03.1996 under Section 7 of the RR Act.
2. For the periods 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Board issued Ext. P1 final determination order dated 31.01.1996 for an amount of Rs. 19,020/- which was followed by a requisition letter of the DEO of the Board dated 29.03.1996 and demand notice of the District Collector dated 12.07.1996 under Section 7 of the RR Act.
3. The petitioner challenged the final determination orders referred above and the Government, by Ext.P2 order dated 01.04.1998, set aside the final determination orders with observation that the case requires fresh determination and directed the 4th respondent, the DEO to re-assess the welfare fund contribution.
4. Pursuant to Ext.P2 order, the DEO re-assessed the welfare fund contribution in respect of the petitioner and issued revised final determination order dated 31.01.1999 for Rs. 13,923/- with interest.
5. Pursuant to the re-assessed final determination order dated 31.01.1999, the DEO submitted a letter dated 30.07.1999 to the District Collector requesting to realise the re-assessed contribution of Rs. 13,923/- with interest as per R.R.C. No. 719/92-93 dated 09.11.1995 and R.R.C. No. 719/93-95 dated 29.03.1996.
6. In the meantime, the petitioner preferred an appeal against Ext.P2 re-assessed final determination order and the Government, though initially granted stay of the proceedings, finally dismissed the appeal as time barred, by Ext. P3. The petitioner challenged Ext. P3 before this Court and the matter was relegated to the Government and the Government passed G.O. (Rt) No. 3079/2000/LBR dated 24.08.2000 refusing to interfere with the re-assessed final determination order of the DEO. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in O.P. No. 28557 of 2000 and the original petition was dismissed by judgment dated 21.02.2006.
7. The petitioner states that, after the revised final determination order passed on 31.01.1999, no steps were taken to recover the said amount and the claim became barred by limitation on 31.01.2002. However, during 2012, when the petitioner took steps to remit the land tax in respect of his property, he was informed by Village Officer, the 3rd respondent that the land tax cannot be accepted due to the pendency of revenue recovery proceedings initiated against him in respect of the contribution towards Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. Ext. P4 is the information issued to the petitioner in this regard by the 3rd respondent under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner contends that the revenue recovery proceedings cannot be continued against him as the original debt itself has been barred by limitation. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition praying for a declaration that the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against him is illegal and beyond the jurisdiction as the original debt is barred by limitation. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the Village Officer to accept land tax in respect of his property.
8. A counter affidavit dated 15.06.2013 is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent Tahsildar wherein it is stated that pursuant to final determination orders dated 04.08.1995 and 31.01.1996 and the requisition by the Board, revenue recovery demand notices un
Halimathu Beevi vs. State of Kerala
Income Tax Officer, Kolar and Another vs. Seghu Buchiah Setty
M/s Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Mohan Wahi vs. Commissioner, Income Tax, Varanasi
Molly Soman W/o Soman vs. Tahasildar (RR) Adoor Taluk Office, Adoor
Philips India Ltd. and Another vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Calcutta and Others
Raveendran Nair vs. State of Kerala
SupremeToday
Article 137 of Limitation Act reads as description of application.
The authority under the Minimum Wages Act must provide an opportunity to be heard before issuing orders, but failure to appear after proper notice results in valid ex parte orders, and delays in chal....
Debt is not the same thing as right of action for its recovery – While debt is right in creditor with correlative duty on debtor right of action for recovery is in nature of a legal power.
Recovery Officers cannot adjudicate unadjudicated claims during execution proceedings under the RDDB Act.
Acknowledgments of debt reset the limitation period for recovery proceedings, and the SARFAESI Act does not bar revenue recovery actions under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.