The court clarified the legal framework for recovering dues under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, emphasizing compliance with statutory limits.

Soumen Sen , C.J .

Heard Mr. P.B Krishnan, learned Senior counsel for the appellant instructed by Mr. Zubair Pulikkool, Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader and Mr. B.

Premod, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent.

2. It appears that the learned Single Judge has relied upon the Division Bench judgment referred to in Ext.R2(A) in W.P(C) No.31954/2019.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty ,¹ has submitted that the said decision clearly states that only dues which are legally recoverable by invoking the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (‘the Act’ for short) can be recovered. The instant case, 1. 1999 KHC 297 : 1999 (3) SCC 657 : AIR 1999 SC 1305 having regard to the fact that the dues now sought to be realised pertain to the years 2010 and 2012, is clearly barred by limitation.

4. The learned counsel referred to the demand notice dated 29.01.2024 and submitted that according to the notice, the period of default is as on 16.02.2013, whereas the appellant has been directed to pay the said amount along with additional charges.

5. The Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 provides that in the event the debtor does not accept the demand notice, he can deposit the amount under protest, and the officer at whose instance the proceedings have been initiated against him shall enquire into the protest and pass appropriate orders.

6. Section 70 (2) of the Act also provides that if the protest is accepted, the officer disposing of the protest shall immediately order the refund of the whole or part of the money paid under protest and initiate fresh proceedings for the realization of the amount, if any, due.

7. Under the said circumstances, we dispose of this writ appeal by directing the appellant to deposit the amount demanded under protest within a period of two weeks from date. In the event, such amount is deposited, we direct the officer concerned to act in accordance with Section 70 (2) of the Act, and consider and dispose of the protest, within period of four weeks thereafter.

8. The officer concerned shall also take into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.R. Kalliyanikutty (supra) and upon consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, dispose of the said proceedings within the aforesaid period by passing a reasoned order.

9. However, it is left open to the writ appellant to file a suit in accordance with law challenging the demand notice and the questions of law and fact.

10. In view of the pendency of the writ petition and the writ appeal, the time for filing the suit under Section 81 (2) of the Act may not be available. Having regard to the fact that the writ petition was filed bona fide and the writ court has arrived at a finding that the matter could be dealt with by the civil court, the time spent from the date of filing of the writ petition till this date shall stand excluded for the purpose of filing the suit under Section 81 (2) of the Act, provided the suit is filed within a period of four weeks from today.

11.In the event the suit is filed within the aforesaid time, the earlier deduction with regard to the adjudication by the officer may not be necessary.

12. The appellant shall clearly evince an intention before the officer concerned as to whether he intends to pursue the suit or deposit the amount under protest and it is for the officer concerned to take a decision on the disputed amount. In the event, the writ appellant decides to pursue its remedy und