SOMASEKHARAN B Vs. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges the revenue recovery action initiated by the Kerala State Housing Board for realisation of their dues. Challenging the recovery proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions. One is that the debt is a time barred one and the second is that the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 requiring service of notice on the defaulter have not been complied with. Standing counsel for the Board has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the learned standing counsel, on the basis of a registered mortgage, petitioner availed of a loan from the respondent on 6.12.90. The period of the loan was 14 years and counsel rightly contends that the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act is 12 years. It is stated that on an earlier occasion, when recovery proceedings were initiated, contending that the notice was not served on the defaulter, W.P.(C) No. 7454/10 was filed by the petitioner. That Writ Petition was disposed of by Ext. P4 judgment directing that fresh steps be taken complying with the statutory requirements of Sections 7 and 34. It is stated that accordingly on 26.5.11, notice under S. 34 was sent to the petitioner which was not served for non availability of the petitioner. It is stated that therefore, on 19.7.11, notice was again sent to the petitioner under registered post, which was returned by the postal authorities with the endorsement "not known". It is stated that on both these notices, address of the petitioner was given as he himself has mentioned it in the mortgaged deed. It is stated that when inspite of the notices thus issued, the liability was not cleared, proceedings under S. 36 were initiated and notice dated 20.1.12 was affixed in the premise on 25.4.12. It is also stated that a notice in this behalf was again issued to the petitioner by registered post on 14.5.12 which again was returned by the postal authorities with the endorsement "not known".

(2.) Admittedly, service of notice by registered post is a method accepted under S. 74 of the Revenue Recovery Act. In this case, both the notices under Sections 34 and 36 were issued to the petitioner in the address indicated by him in the mortgaged deed itself. Both these notices were returned with the endorsement "not known". In my view, with these notices, requirement of notice to the defaulter which is provided in Sections 34 and 36 is satisfied.

(3.) In so far as the plea of limitation is concerned also, evidently, the recovery proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a registered mortgage, in which case, the period of limitation is not three years as contended by the petitioner, but it is twelve years. The loan period being 14 years, the recovery proceedings initiated in 2009-10 is well within the period of limitation. Therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere in this Writ Petition. Writ Petition is dismissed. Be that as it may, the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not be to the prejudice of the petitioner in pursuing the statutory remedies that are available under the Revenue Recovery Act.