High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-10-03Dismissed

P. D. Babu and Others v. District Collector, Civil Station, Thrissur; KSFE (Cherpu Branch) and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.24586 of 2019(W)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.B. SURESH KUMAR
Judgment Date: 2019-10-03
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is without merits and dismissed. The court held that the dispute is a settlement of accounts, not amenable to writ jurisdiction. It clarified that Section 72(2) bars only suits relating to execution or sale under the Act, and not a declaration as to the liability in respect of a transaction, citing Chinnaswamy v. State of Kerala and Prakasan for this proposition.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. D. Babu
Tessy Babu
Elma Babu (represented through Power Holder, P. D. Babu)

Respondents

District Collector, Civil Station, AYYANTHOLE, Thrissur-680003
The Deputy Tahsildar (RR) KSFE Ltd, Thrissur-680020
The Manager, KSFE, Cherpu Branch, Cherpu, Thrissur-680561
Assistant General Manager, KSFE, Thiruvambady Building, Round North, Thrissur-680001
The Managing Director, KSFE, Bhadrada, Museum Road, Thrissur-680020

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri M. Anil Kumar
• Smt. Preethi K. Purushothaman

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P. Prijith

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioners, subscribers of Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (KSFE) chits at Cherpu, and their borrowers, challenge KSFE’s adjustments of prize money against liabilities of unrelated chits and seek relief against revenue recovery actions. They allege that KSFE has falsified ledgers, misallocated payments, and failed to properly consider their representations filed with KSFE management. They contend that in the background of these anomalies, authorities have initiated revenue recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act at the instance of KSFE, which amounts to coercive collection in fraud. They argue that Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act bars civil suits, preventing relief in a civil court, and so the writ petition is the only remedy. The court, however, identifies the dispute as one concerning settlement of accounts between the petitioners and KSFE, a matter not fit for adjudication by the High Court under Article 226. It notes that the bar in Section 72(2) applies to suits for execution or sale under the Act, not to a declaration on liability arising from a transaction. Relying on Chinnaswamy v. State of Kerala and Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. Prakasan, the court clarifies the scope of relief, but ultimately holds the petition without merit and dismisses the writ petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Revenue Recovery Act - Section 72Revenue Recovery Act - Section 72(2)Constitution of India - Article 226

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that KSFE’s accounts and ledgers show inconsistencies, with prize money from certain chits being wrongly adjusted against liabilities of other chits for which the petitioners are not subscribers. They assert that despite filing a representation with the KSFE manager, the matter has not been properly considered, while revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against them. They submit that the relief they seek lies in a civil suit; invoking Section 72 they claim that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is barred, and thus the petition should be entertained to challenge the alleged fraud and misrecording in the accounts.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the dispute is fundamentally about settlement of accounts between KSFE and the petitioners, a matter inappropriate for redressal in writ jurisdiction. They emphasize that revenue recovery actions are legitimate remedies under the Revenue Recovery Act and deny any fraud or falsification. They rely on the statutory scheme, arguing that the petition cannot prevail as a matter of right, and the petitioners should pursue civil relief where appropriate.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chinnaswamy v. State of Kerala	2009 (2) KLT 525	Positive	Cited to support that Section 72 does not preclude a suit for declaration as to liability.
Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. Prakasan	2011 (3) KLT 893	Positive	Cited for the same proposition regarding the scope of Section 72 and civil relief.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P. D. Babu and Others v. District Collector, Civil Station, Thrissur; KSFE (Cherpu Branch) and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 11TH ASWINA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.24586 OF 2019(W)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 P.D.BABU, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSYKUTTY, PARAKKAL HOUSE, VALLACHIRA.P.O, VALLACHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680 562.** - **2 TESSY BABU, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.BABU, PARAKKAL HOUSE, VALLACHIRA.P.O, VALLACHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680562.** - **3 ELMA BABU, D/O.P.D.BABU, PARAKKAL HOUSE, VALLACHIRA.P.O, VALLACHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680562, REPRESENTED THROUGH HER POWER HOLDER,P.D.BABU.** ## **BY ADVS. SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR SMT.PREETHI K.PURUSHOTHAMAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003.** - **2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (RR V)K.S.F.E.LTD, THRISSUR-680020.** - **3 THE MANAGER, KSFE, CHERPU BRANCH, CHERPU, THRISSUR-680561.** WPC No. 24586 of 2019 2 |**4**|**ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,**| |---|---| ||**KSFE, THIRUVAMBADY BUILDING,**| ||**ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680001.**| |**5**|**THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,**| ||**KSFE,BHADRADA ,P.B.NO.510, MUSEUM ROAD,**| ||**THRISSUR-680020.**| ||**R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC No. 24586 of 2019 3 ## **W.P.(C) No.24586 of 2019** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioners are subscribers of a number of chits run by the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (the KSFE) at their Cherpu branch. Petitioners have also availed loans from the KSFE. The case set out by the petitioners in the writ petition is that the prize money in respect of some of the chits subscribed by them have been adjusted against the liability in respect of a few chits, of which the petitioners are not the subscribers. It is also the case of the petitioners that likewise, certain amounts paid by the petitioners have also been adjusted against the liability in respect of a few chits of which the petitioners are not subscribers. It is alleged by the petitioners that the statement of accounts and ledgers maintained by the KSFE in relation to the chits of the petitioners are contradictory. It is also alleged by the petitioners that though the petitioners have preferred a representation before WPC No. 24586 of 2019 4 the Manager of the concerned branch of the KSFE pointing out the anomalies, the same was not effectively and properly considered. It is further alleged by the petitioners that in the meanwhile, steps have also been taken for realisation of the amounts allegedly due from the petitioners under the Revenue Recovery Act (the Act) and in furtherance to the same, the authorities under the said statute have initiated proceedings against the petitioners. It is alleged by the petitioners that the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against them at the instance of the KSFE are vitiated by fraud. It is stated by the petitioners that in the light of Section 72 of the Act, the petitioners are unable to approach the civil court for appropriate relief and hence this writ petition challenging the revenue recovery proceedings aforesaid. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The pleadings of the petitioners in the writ petition would indicate beyond doubt that the dispute between the petitioners on one hand and the KSFE on the other hand is one relating to settlement of accounts. A dispute of this nature WPC No. 24586 of 2019 5 cannot be undertaken by this court, in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is all the more since the petitioners attribute falsification of records by the officers of the KSFE. Needless to say that the petitioners have to approach the civil court for resolution of the aforesaid dispute. The stand taken by the petitioners that they are unable to institute a suit for appropriate relief in the light of Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act cannot be accepted. The bar under sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Act against institution of suits does not apply to a case of this nature. Section 72 of the Act bars only a suit relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of a written demand issued under the Act or relating to the confirmation or setting aside by an order under the Act of a sale held in execution of such demand. Section 72 of the Act does not preclude a suit for declaration as to the liability of the plaintiff in respect of a transaction or transactions [See **Chinnaswamy v. State of Kerala,** 2009 (2) KLT 525 and **Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v.** WPC No. 24586 of 2019 6 **Prakasan,** 2011 (3) KLT 893]. The writ petition, in the circumstances, is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. **Sd/-** **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** YKB WPC No. 24586 of 2019 7 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **EXHIBIT P1** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 16.01.2019** - **EXHIBIT P2** - **THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE KURIES,LOANS ETC HAVE BEEN CATEGORICALLY DESCRIBED AS A,B AND C SCHEDULES** - **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PASSBOOK FOR THE CHITTY NO.15/12-A/46** - **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PASS BOOK OF THE CHITTY NO.15/12-A/47** - **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CHITTY NO.15/12-A/46** - **EXHIBIT P5 A THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CHITTY NO.15/12-A/47** - **EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.06.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P7** - **THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.11.2018 IN W.P.(C)NO.21418/2018** - **EXHIBIT P8** - **THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER RTI ACT FOR OBTAINING DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS DATED 02.08.2019** - **EXHIBIT P9,P9(A) TO THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY P9(O) NOTICE NO.DATED 14.08.2019 NO.SDT/TSR/4634-4649/19-20(16 NUMBERS)** WPC No. 24586 of 2019 8 **EXHIBIT P10,P10(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY TO P10(J) NOTICE NO.SDT/TSR/4652-46659 AND 4672/19-20 DATED 14.08.2019 (9 NUMBERS)** **EXHIBIT P11,P11(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY TO P11(I) NOTICE NO.SDT/TSR/4660-4671 AND 4672/19-20 DATED 14.08.2019 (12 NUMBERS)** **EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION/OBJECTION GIVEN TO THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS DATED 02.08.2019 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** YKB