Civil Courts cannot adjudicate revenue recovery matters; such disputes must be resolved by designated authorities as per the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.

JUDGMENT

This R.S.A. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2020 in A.S.No.13/2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kasaragod (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court') which arose from the judgment and decree dated 13.2.2019 in O.S.No.373/2015 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court').

2. The appellant and respondents herein are the plaintiff and defendants respectively before the trial court in O.S.No.373/2015. The suit is for declaration that the alleged order dated 19.6.2013 passed by the 1st defendant against the plaintiff is void and also for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the plaintiff. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendants according to their status in the trial court unless otherwise stated.

3. The averments contained in the plaint are that the plaintiff received a notice dated 26.5.2015 under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the RR Act') from the 2nd defendant in which it is stated that the Village Officer, Paivalike has been authorised to distrain the movables of the plaintiff. It is also mentioned in the notice that the revenue recovery proceeding was initiated pursuant to the requisition of the 1st defendant for realisation of Rs.2,47,141/- which was fell due on 26.12.2014. The notice issued under Section 7 of the RR Act and the alleged revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the 2nd defendant is illegal.

4. The respondents filed written statement contending that the revenue recovery proceeding has been initiated against the plaintiff and the notice under Section 7 of the RR Act has been issued for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,47,141/-. The 1st defendant is the Assessing Officer under the Act. As per the records of the Taluk Office, Kasaragod, the plaintiff has constructed a commercial building in Kumbala Panchayat having a plinth area of 2079.28 metre square. The 1st defendant sent an assessment notice to the plaintiff on 19.1.2013 requesting him to remit Rs.1,81,147/- as cess amount and Rs.1,830/- under the head other receipts and also to appear before the 1st defendant in person or authorised representative on 4.2.2013 if he has any objection against the provisional notice. The plaintiff explained that he sold the building and sought two months' time to produce the records. But he failed to produce the same. As per the above order, the plaintiff was directed to remit the above amount on or before 18.7.2013. But he did not remit the amount. Consequently, the 1st defendant proceeded under Section 10 of the Act. On receipt of the revenue recovery certificate from the District Collector for realisation of Rs.2,47,141/- with 24% interest, the 2nd defendant issued a demand notice in Form No.1 under Section 7 and Form No.10 under Section 34 of the RR Act and authorised the 4th defendant to realise the same amount. The suit is barred under Section 72 of the RR Act.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the ground that the defendant has not complied with the provisions contemplated under the Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996. However, the specific contention of the defendants is that the suit is hit under Section 72 of the RR Act. Section 72 of the RR Act reads as follows:-

“72. General bar to jurisdiction of Civil Courts- (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every question arising between the Collector or the authorised officer and the defaulter or his representative or any other person claiming any right through the defaulter, relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of a written demand issued under this Act or relating to the confirmation or setting aside by an order under this Act of a sale held in execution of such demand, shall be determined not by suit, but by o