“C.R.”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

ST MONDAY, THE 1 DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 30017 OF 2018 PETITIONER/S:

AJMAL.T.M AGED 52 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, THATTAM VEEDU, KALOOR, COCHIN -

682 017, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV C.Y.VINOD KUMAR RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 011.

2 THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GCDA)

KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

3 THE SECRETARY GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GCDA), KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN- 682 020.

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 020.

BY ADV SRI.MINI V.A., SC, GCDA OTHER PRESENT:

Sri. Bimal. K. Nath, Sr. G. P.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

“C.R”

JUDGMENT

The demand raised under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the “Revenue Recovery Act”) is questioned in this writ petition on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The facts in the present writ petition disclose that the petitioner entered into a lease agreement with Greater Cochin Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “GCDA”), as evident from Ext.P3, in respect of a shop room, which he had successfully bid at auction. Pursuant to the execution of the lease agreement, the petitioner was required to pay rent for the shop room he occupied. Petitioner has a case that he was not able to run the business for which the shop was taken on rent because of various extraneous factors, with which this Court is not concerned. On the expiration of the lease, it appears that the GCDA sent a requisition for revenue recovery for the recovery of arrears of rent.

2. I have heard the learned counsel, Sri.C.Y. Vinod Kumar, for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, Smt. Mini V.A, for respondents 2 & 3.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the demand issued by the revenue recovery authorities on requisition of the GCDA is barred by limitation. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. Y.R. Kalyanikutty [1999 (2) KLT 146], wherein it was held that the provisions of the Limitation Act will apply to the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner also takes me through the counter affidavit filed by the GCDA (respondent Nos. 2 and 3). In the counter affidavit it is specifically asserted in paragraph No.4 that the term of the agreement expired on 17.03.2014. It is further averred in paragraph No. 5 of the above counter affidavit that the respondent sent a requisition for revenue recovery on 16.11.2017. Therefore, it is evidently clear that the requisition is beyond a period of three years.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the GCDA, however, controverted the above submissions by referring to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Godan Namboothiripad Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation [1998 KHC 621] to contend for the proposition that the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “Limitation Act”) is not applicable to the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. She further takes me to Article 112 of the Limitation Act, which provides for a period of thirty (30) years for the recovery of amounts due to a State Government. It is therefore contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the GCDA being an Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, has to be equated with all the trappings of the State so as to attract the provisions of Article 112 of the Limitation Act.

5. On the basis of the submissions raised across the bar, this Court is called upon to decide as to whether, for proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, the law of limitation would apply. If so, which provision under the Limitation Act applies to such proceedings.?

6. In so far as the contention of the learned Standing C