T.S.SARIKA Vs. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the coercive action proposed to be taken against the petitioners for revenue recovery at the instance of the 3rd respondent bank, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(2.) THE petitioners are Convenor and Joint Convenor of SN Unit of Women Self Help Group, Kallikkadu. They allege that as per the undertaking between the 4th respondent and the Women Self Help Group, an amount of 1,00,000/ - was disbursed among 20 members of the Group. These 20 members shared 5,000/ - each among themselves. The petitioners allege that the entire amount so availed by the Group was returned to the 4th respondent as evident from Ext.P1 receipts. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent caused to issue Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5 notices under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 on the petitioners, from which it is understood that the said notices were issued at the instance of the 3rd respondent. Their definite case is that they never availed any loan from the 3rd respondent nor signed any agreement in this regard and there is no contract/agreement/undertaking between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent has not disbursed any loan to the petitioners. The petitioners allege that on an enquiry, they were given to understand that the 4th respondent availed huge amounts from the

(3.) EVIDENTLY , and admittedly too, the petitioners' Group has availed a finance facility from the 4th respondent Union. In fact, there is no privity of contract between the 3rd respondent and petitioners. It is evident from Ext.P1 that the financial arrangement between the petitioners and the other members of the Group with the 4th respondent was discharged. As there is no arrangement between the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 other than the one covered under Ext.P1, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2 cannot be in accordance with the Revenue Recovery Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, they are neither defaulters nor there is any arrear of public revenue due on land belonging to the petitioners. Therefore, Exts.P2 to P5 notices are not sustainable in law under any circumstance. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and it is declared that the petitioners are not liable to pay any amount for the default of Loan Account No.57/537.179 that was disbursed by the petitioners in favour of the 4th respondent.