Nishanth Thomas v. State of Kerala and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2023-11-03
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions allowed; Exts. P3 and P4 demands set aside; Bank can initiate appropriate action against the petitioner under other available statutes.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed; Exts. P3 and P4 set aside; bank may pursue action under other statutes.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nishanth Thomas

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Land Revenue Commissioner, State of Kerala
The District Collector, Kozhikode District
The Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Thamarassery Taluk
The Village Officer, Kumaranallur Village
Canara Bank, Thamarassery Branch represented by Authorized Officer

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
• SUSANTH SHAJI
• ALBIN A. JOSEPH
• AMRITHA.J
• VIPIN C. VARGHESE

Counsels for Respondents

• GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M
• K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)
• JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)
• KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
• PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)
• RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)
• PRANOY HARILAL(K/931/2018)

Case Synopsis & Summary

These writ petitions challenge a Revenue Recovery action initiated by the 6th respondent bank for recovery of a loan. The petitioner Nishanth Thomas contends that invoking Revenue Recovery under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, is impermissible for loans not brought within Section 72, particularly since the amount due exceeds Rs 20 lakhs. He relies on this Court's decision in Sam J. Mathew v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR) [2019 (4) KHC 105], arguing that the Bank's attempt to recover through Revenue Recovery is illegal and unlawful beyond the ambit of Section 72. The bank's counsel, while not contesting the illegality under Section 72, seeks liberty to pursue action under other applicable statutes if necessary. The Court, after considering the pleadings and material on record, holds that recovery of the amounts due under the loan cannot proceed under RR Act, on the stated basis that the loan is not within the ambit of Section 72 and the bank has no contrary case. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed, Exts. P3 and P4 are set aside, and the bank is free to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner under other statutes. The decision, rendered on 03 November 2023 by a single judge, clarifies that while Revenue Recovery is unavailable, alternative remedies remain open to the bank.

Provisions of Law Cited

Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 - Section 72Kerala Revenue Recovery Act - Section 7Kerala Revenue Recovery Act - Section 34Sarfaesi Act - Section 13(2)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the Revenue Recovery action by the bank is not permissible under Section 72 of the RR Act for amounts exceeding Rs 20 lakhs, relying on Sam J. Mathew v. Deputy Tahsildar. He asserts that the loan cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 72 and that the remedy lies under other statutes. The petition underscores the need to avoid coercive recovery through Revenue Recovery mechanisms for such loans.

Contentions of Respondents

The bank's counsel submits that while the action under RR Act may be untenable, liberty should be reserved to initiate appropriate recovery actions under other statutes, if necessary, without conceding the RR Act remedy.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sam J. Mathew v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR)	2019 (4) KHC 105	Positive	The decision is cited to support the proposition that Revenue Recovery actions by a bank beyond Section 72 are illegal/unlawful, aligning with the court's reasoning.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 21272 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` NISHANTH THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O THOMAS, KEERAMPANAL HOUSE, KOODARANHI, KOODARANHI VILLAGE THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673604 ``` ``` BY ADVS. VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SUSANTH SHAJI ALBIN A. JOSEPH AMRITHA.J VIPIN C. VARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 682031` - `2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, STATE OF KERALA, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001` - `3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, WAYANAD RD, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673020` - `4 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THAMARASSERY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, THAMARASSERY, PIN – 673573` - `5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMARANALLUR VILLAGE, KUMARANALLUR, PIN – 673602` - `6 CANARA BANK, THAMARASSERY BRANCH, LAILANILAYAM, KARADAY BAZAR, TP X 140, MAIN ROAD, THAMARASSERY, PIN – 673591` WPC 21272/23 & 21582/23 2 ``` BY ADVS. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984) JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526) KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003) PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006) RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008) PRANOY HARILAL(K/931/2018) ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.21582/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WPC 21272/23 & 21582/23 3 # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 21582 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` NISHANTH THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS S/O THOMAS, KEERAMPANAL HOUSE, KOODARANHI, KOODARANHI VILLAGE THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673604 ``` ``` BY ADVS. VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SUSANTH SHAJI ALBIN A. JOSEPH AMRITHA.J VIPIN C. VARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695001` - `2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, STATE OF KERALA, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001` - `3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, WAYANAD RD, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE-, PIN – 673020` - `4 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THAMARASSERY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, THAMARASSERY, PIN – 673573` - `5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMARANALLUR VILLAGE, KUMARANALLUR-, PIN – 673602` - `6 CANARA BANK, THAMARASSERY BRANCH, LAILA NILAYAM, KARADAY BAZAR, TP X 140, MAIN ROAD, THAMARASSERY REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN – 673591` WPC 21272/23 & 21582/23 4 ``` BY ADVS. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984) JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526) KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003) PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006) RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008) PRANOY HARILAL(K/931/2018) ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.21272/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WPC 21272/23 & 21582/23 5 ## JUDGMENT ``` [WP(C) Nos.21272/2023, 21582/2023] ``` The specific case of the petitioner in these Writ Petitions is that the Revenue Recovery action initiated by the 6[th] respondent – Bank against him, allegedly for recovery of certain amounts due under a loan facility availed of from them earlier, is not permissible under Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 ('RR Act' for short), since the amount due from him is over Rs.20 lakhs. He argues that it is clear from the judgment of this Court in Sam J. Mathew v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR) [2019 (4) KHC 105], that invocation of the Revenue Recovery action by the Bank is illegal and unlawful, since it is beyond the ambit of Section 72 of the RR Act. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the 6[th] respondentBank, submitted that he leaves it to this Court to decide whether the Revenue Recovery action requisitioned by his client is tenable; but sought liberty for them to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner in terms of other applicable statutes. 3. I have no doubt that, going by the pleadings and WPC 21272/23 & 21582/23 6 materials on record – which remain uncontested, an action for recovery of the amounts due under the loan in question cannot be taken forward. This is because, the said loan is not one that has been brought within the ambit of Section 72 of the RR Act; and the respondent – Bank also does not have a case to the contrary. In the afore circumstances, I allow these Writ Petitions and set aside Exts.P3 and P4 demands issued by the respondents, however, clarifying that the Bank can initiate appropriate action against the petitioner, in any manner as they choose fit, under other available statutes. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` RR ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` WPC 21272/23 & 21582/23 7 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21582/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.04.2022 UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P2TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 14.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P3TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23.02.2023 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT Exhibit P4TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23.02.2023 CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. Exhibit P5TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH EMAIL ``` WPC 21272/23 & 21582/23 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21272/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.04.2022 UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P2TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 14.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P3TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23.02.2023 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT Exhibit P4TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23.02.2023 CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. Exhibit P5TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH EMAIL ```