HALIMATHU BEEVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this Original Petition is to call for the records leading to Ext P2 and quash the same.

(2.) Petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- for conducting a provision shop on 10.11.1987. Petitioner made some payments but however on 17.11.1990 she acknowledged to the effect that she owes Rs.18745.55. Subsequently as the loan amount was not paid the Bank by communication dated 28.1.1993 addressed to the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram requesting that the amount indicated therein with interest should be recovered from the defaulter. Along with that letter Annexure III (Form 24 under S.69(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968) was also enclosed. Basing on this the District Collector issued a certificate for recovery of the sum, namely Annexure IV (Form 25 under S.69(3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968). The amount mentioned in Annexure IV is Rs.25,940/-. Thereafter the District Collector sent a communication dated 28.6.1993 to the Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, Thiruvananthapuram, directing him to recover the amount from the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act and intimate the recovery particulars. Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the respondents have initiated recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act to recover the said amount due from the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would put forth two submissions. Firstly it is contended that in view of the recent ruling of the Apex Court reported in State of Kerala v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty, 1999 (2) KLT 146 , the recovery proceedings have to be dropped on the ground that they were initiated long after the period allowed under law. The second contention is that since the amount was paid under a commercial loan from the downtrodden like the petitioner, Revenue Recovery Act cannot be enforced.