A time-barred debt cannot be recovered through the statutory mechanism of the Revenue Recovery Act.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the power of attorney holder of Sri.Rajesh K.G., and challenges the revenue recovery proceedings initiated as per Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 initiated against the said Rajesh.

2. According to the petitioner, Sri.Rajesh K.G.-the executant of the attorney, had availed a loan under the Central Government Scheme by name PMRY [Prime Ministers Rozgar Yojana] for an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 01.07.1997 from the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore [for short, ‘SBT’]. Petitioner alleges that, though irregular, Sri.Rajesh K.G., had remitted the entire loan amount in time and the loan period itself was completed on 01.07.2004. It is stated that the Bank had even intimated that the entire amount availed as loan was fully written off, in accordance with the Scheme announced by the Central Government and the list of beneficiaries whose PMRY loan were written off was published in the notice board. Thereafter, from 01.07.2004 till the end of August 2018, no amounts were demanded, nor was the loan renewed by the 4^th respondent. No suit or legal action was also initiated, and since no property was also pledged with the 4^th respondent at the time of availing the loan, recovery of any amount allegedly due, cannot be proceeded with due to lapse of time.

3. In the meanwhile, after the merger of SBT with SBI, proceedings have been initiated as an after thought, by issuing Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 revenue recovery proceedings on 19.09.2019 and 20.02.2020 respectively. Petitioner contends that, even if it is assumed that any amount is due from Sri.Rajesh K.G, under the loan availed by him, still revenue recovery proceedings are barred by time, as held in State of Kerala v. V.R.Kalyanikutty [1999 (2) KLT 146] as well as in Annamma Jose v. Kerala Financial Corporation [2002 (2) KLT

834]

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader.

5. The principles of law as laid down in the decisions in Kalyanikutty (supra) and Annamma Jose (supra) categorically state that a time barred debt cannot be recovered by recourse to the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act. Since the remedy of recovery through the process of the Revenue Recovery Act became barred in the instant case by 30.06.2007, and no requisition has been concededly initiated prior to the said date, the petitioner is justified in his contention that the recovery proceedings issued as Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 as against Sri.Rajesh K.G., are barred by time. The proceedings initiated are contrary to law and are required to be interfered with. Hence, Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 are quashed.

This writ petition is allowed.