Padmavathy w/o late Krishnan v. State of Kerala and others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **TUESDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 26TH POUSHA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 4897 OF 2014** ## **PETITIONER:** **PADMAVATHY W/O.LATE KRISHNAN, KELOTH HOUSE, PANIYOOR AMSOM, MAZHOOR DESOM, THALIPARAMBA TALUK.** **BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR DISTRICT, KANNUR 670 001.** - **3 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR RR THALIPARAMBA, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR 670 141.** - **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PANIYOOR VILLAGE, PANIYOOR, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR 670 141.** - **5 THE SUPERINTENDENT TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KARIMBAM THALIPARAMBA 670 141.** - **6 THE THALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPALITY OFFICE, THALIPARAMBA 670 141.** ## **BY ADV. RESHMI THOMAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP.(C.)NO.4897 OF 2014 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 16[th] day of January, 2024** The petitioner is the wife of late Krishnan. The late husband of the petitioner, who was allotted the right of running a canteen attached to the Thaliparamba Taluk Head Quarters Hospital through Ext.P1 dated 20.05.1999, which was subsequently handed over to the Kerala State Cooperative Hospital Complex & Centre for Advanced Medical Science (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Pariyaram Medical College’). It is submitted that, after the Thaliparamba Taluk Head Quarters Hospital was initially transferred to the Pariyaram Medical College, the Government took a decision to transfer the same to the 6[th] respondent Municipality. The Superintendent of the Thaliparamba Taluk Head Quarters Hospital had sent notices to the late husband of the petitioner, claiming arrears of rent for certain period covered by Ext.P1. Thereafter, Ext.P6 letter dated 29.07.2000 was issued regarding taking WP.(C.)NO.4897 OF 2014 3 over of the possession of the canteen premises, against which the late husband of the petitioner filed O.S.No.595 of 1999 before the Munsiff Court, Thaliparamba. The suit was admittedly dismissed for default. When revenue recovery proceedings were initiated, the late husband of the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P.No.4616 of 2001, which was dismissed by Ext.P9 judgment. The late husband of the petitioner thereafter filed O.S.No.13 of 2008 before the Munsiff Court, Thaliparamba, challenging the revenue recovery proceedings. Following the death of the husband of the petitioner, the said suit was also dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with notices under the Revenue Recovery Act, for recovery of the amounts due from the late husband of the petitioner. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court, mainly on the ground that the revenue recovery proceedings are bad on account of the fact that it is initiated beyond the period of limitation and therefore, it is against the law laid down WP.(C.)NO.4897 OF 2014 4 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **State of Kerala v. Y.R. Kalyanikutty [1999 (2) KLT 146].** 2. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the only contention now taken is that, the proceedings are barred by limitation. It is submitted that the revenue recovery proceedings were originally initiated against the late husband of the petitioner, which was challenged before this Court by filing O.P.No.4616 of 2001. It is submitted that this Court had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the late husband of the petitioner, in the following manner; “3. Counsel for petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in STATE OF KARNATAKA V. EXE. ENGINEER, THUNGABHADRA, A.1.R. 1987 S.C. 1359 and contended that where there is a dispute between parties, adjudication has to be first completed before proceeding for recovery. In this case, I do not find any surviving dispute as demand from petitioner can be computed by simple calculation which is to be paid by the petitioner. All what is required is to compute the arrears of rent which is a minor clerical job. The only defence WP.(C.)NO.4897 OF 2014 5 available to the petitioner is claim of part payment towards arrears before Ist respondent. 4. In the circumstances, the Original petition is dismissed leaving freedom to the petitioner to produce receipts of payments towards rent before the 3rd respondent to close the account. If payments are made within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, no collection charges or interest should be recovered from the petitioner. If payment is not made within one month as above, the entire arrears should be collected with collection charges. No costs.” It is submitted that the question as to whether revenue recovery proceedings are barred by limitation should be considered with reference to the date of requisition and, since the revenue recovery proceedings were already been initiated against the late husband of the petitioner within the period of limitation, it cannot be said that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are barred by limitation, as it is only a continuation of the original proceedings initiated on the requisition of the competent authority for recovery of WP.(C.)NO.4897 OF 2014 6 the amounts due from the late husband of the petitioner. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that, there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned Government Pleader. The records of the case shows that the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated originally against the late husband of the petitioner, which was challenged before this Court by filing O.P.No.4616 of 2001. This Court through Ext.P9 judgment refused to interfere with the revenue recovery proceedings. The petitioner has no case that the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the late husband of the petitioner was barred by limitation. The proceedings presently against the petitioner are only a continuation of the proceedings, based on the revenue recovery requisition issued against the late husband of the petitioner. It is settled law that, where revenue recovery proceedings are challenged on the ground of limitation, WP.(C.)NO.4897 OF 2014 7 the date of requisition is the relevant date for the purposes of determining as to whether the revenue recovery proceedings are barred by limitation. Since the petitioner has no case that the requisition issued by the competent authority, seeking recovery from the late husband of the petitioner is beyond the period of limitation, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner and in respect of the properties inherited by the petitioner from her late husband, cannot be stated to be barred by limitation. Therefore, I find no merit in the contention taken by the petitioner that the proceedings against her are barred by limitation. 4. At that point of time, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner may at least be relieved of the liability of interest on the amount payable by the late husband of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has no source of income and if the petitioner is mulcted with the liability to pay interest, petitioner will be put to irreparable injury, prejudice and hardship. WP.(C.)NO.4897 OF 2014 8 5. Though no legal ground has been made to relieve the petitioner from payment of interest, on the amount payable by the late husband of the petitioner, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and considering the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner has no means of income, presently to pay off the liability along with interest, I deem it appropriate to direct that, if the sum of Rs.91,750/- (Rupees ninety one thousand seven hundred fifty only) is deposited before the 3[rd] respondent, on or before 28.02.2024, the same shall be deemed to be a complete discharge of the liability of the late husband of the petitioner. I make it clear that, if the petitioner does not pay the aforesaid amount, on or before 28.02.2024, the petitioner will be liable for interest. It is made clear that, no further extension of time will be considered under any circumstances. If the amount is not paid within the aforesaid time, it will be open to the respondents to continue the recovery WP.(C.)NO.4897 OF 2014 9 proceedings for collection of the amount now demanded, together with interest up to date. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. **Sd/-** **GOPINATH P. JUDGE** NB/16-1 WP.(C.)NO.4897 OF 2014 10 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4897/2014** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 20.5.99 EXECUTED BETWEEN MR.KRISHNAN AND ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCE. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.06.99 IS ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO MR. KRISHNAN. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 6.07.99. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.7.99 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO MR.KRISHNAN. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.8.99 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 29.7.00 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO MR. KRISHNAN. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.595/99 DATED 16.10.99 FILED BY MR.KRISHNAN BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT THALIPARAMBA. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.1.2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.2.06 IN OP NO.4616/01 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE PLAINT OS NO.13/08 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT THALIPARAMBA FILED BY LATE MR.KRISHNAN DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 22.2.13 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT U/S.36 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 49 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 1.1.14 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 16.2.87 IN WA 170/87 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** ## **RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **TRUE COPY** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE**