Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74295

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Viju Abraham, J
Abhilash S. V. – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 22477 OF 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. J. John Prakash, P. Pramel, Harishma, Ashik Toms, Celine John, Ramseena N.
For the Respondents: M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Government Pleader, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan, Akhila Nambiar

Revenue recovery proceedings are not maintainable under the Revenue Recovery Act for amounts exceeding the statutory limit of Rs. 20 lakhs.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged a notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, contending that as the outstanding dues exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs, proceedings could not be initiated under the Act of 1968, relying on the precedent set in Sam J Mathews and Others v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR) Taluk Office, Thalappally, Trichur and Others 2019 (4) KHC 105. The court accepted the submission, acknowledging the concession made by the respondent bank regarding the legal position. The primary issue was whether Revenue Recovery Proceedings are maintainable for dues exceeding the prescribed threshold. The Ratio Decidendi rests on the established judicial interpretation that recovery proceedings under the Act are impermissible once the liability threshold is exceeded, a principle which remained undisputed by the respondent.

Table of Content
1. revenue recovery proceedings exceeding twenty lakh rupees are legally impermissible. (Para 1 , 2)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

VIJU ABRAHAM,J

-------------------

WP(C).No.22477 of 2022

-------------------------------

Dated this the 29th day of October, 2025

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 notice, whereby proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act was initiated. The petitioner, relying on the judgment in Sam J Mathews and Others v. Deputy Tahsildar(RR) Taluk Office, Thalappally, Trichur and Others 2019 (4) KHC 105 submits that since dues are over Rs.20 lakhs, the Revenue Recovery Proceedings cannot be initiated.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank does not dispute the said legal position.

Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P2 notice. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74295

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMViju Abraham, JAbhilash S. V. – AppellantVersusCanara Bank – RespondentWP(C) NO. 22477 OF 2022

Revenue recovery proceedings are not maintainable under the Revenue Recovery Act for amounts exceeding the statutory limit of Rs. 20 lakhs.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Viju Abraham, J
Abhilash S. V. – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 22477 OF 2022