The court emphasized the lack of authority of the Private Secretary and Ministers to interfere with revenue recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and cautioned against initiating recovery of debts exceeding Rs.20 Lakhs under Section 17 of the RDB Act.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Chandran, J.

The State is in appeal against a judgment of the learned Single Judge, which interfered with an order, issued by the Private Secretary to a Minister, granting installments in a recovery initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (for brevity ‘R.R. Act’). The order was challenged as totally without jurisdiction and the learned Single Judge came heavily down on the action, finding it to be totally illegal, arbitrary and unfair.

2. By Ext.P2 the recovery initiated was deferred on conditions of a lump sum payment of 10% of the demand and 50 subsequent monthly installments. Admittedly, there was default committed in complying with the installments granted at Ext.P2. Subsequently, by Annexure-IV dated 19.8.2018, revenue recovery proceedings were again kept in abeyance for one month and rescheduled with 60 installments granted, to pay off the balance amounts, from 14.9.2018. Even now, the amounts have not been fully paid up as per the installments granted. Last time when we took up the matter, we directed the learned Government Pleader to inform us as to the installments paid as per the order issued and also the authority under which such orders were issued by the Private Secretary of the Minister (Ext.P2) and the Additional Chief Secretary (Annexure-IV).

3. Learned Special Government Pleader, Sri. S. Renjith, appeared for the Government and produced before us the files, as also, a statement of the installments paid. We also heard learned Counsel Sri. P. Sathisan appearing for the respondent-Bank. Special Messenger was served on the petitioner in the writ petition on 24.9.2022, but there is no appearance. It is submitted that even in the writ petition, there was no appearance for the party respondents, who are the defaulters.

4. We have been shown a statement of deposits made as per the installments granted, as per the instructions supplied by the Deputy Collector (RR), Collectorate, Kannur dated 27.9.2022, which is as follows :

It is clear from the above that, after making four installments as per Ext.P2 order, again the defaulter approached the Additional Chief Secretary and obtained an order re-scheduling the payments. Then, after one single installment, there has been no payment made.

5. In this context, we have examined the R.R.Act as to the source of power, to keep the revenue recovery initiated, in abeyance. Insofar as the revenue recovery proceedings, the visitorial jurisdiction is conferred on the Commissioner of Land Revenue and the Government under Section 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. The power conferred under sub-section (1) can be invoked by the Commissioner of Land Revenue suo motu or on an application by an interested person. The power of the Government, again either suo motu or on an application, is to call for the report of any proceeding before the Commissioner of Land Revenue passed under sub-section (1). The provisos under both sub-Sections (1) and (2) specifically speak of the mandate of a notice to the affected party before making such an order.

6. In the present case, we see that Ext.P2 is an order made by the Private Secretary of the Revenue Minister; obviously without any notice to the Bank. The counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge indica