RASHEED T.E. Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES(KSFE) LTD. AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a subscriber of a chitty, with the second respondent KSFE Ltd, Pala Branch. Chitty was bid in favour of the petitioner, amounts were released on execution of mortgage. Admittedly, repayment was defaulted, consequently actions were initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, which finally culminated in Ext.P3 notice of sale under Section 49 of the aforesaid Act. According to the petitioner, in accordance with the directions issued by the officials of the KSFE, petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 before the Kottayam Taluk Legal Services Authority, however, no action is initiated in order to settle the transaction in accordance with any scheme available. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior Government Pleader, learned standing counsel for the KSFE and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

(3.) The predominant contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, petitioner is prepared to pay the entire amount outstanding and as shown in Ext.P3 in one shot, but, the respondents are insisting that the collection charges at the rate of 7.5%, is to be paid by the petitioner.