High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2019-02-12Writ petition allowed; arrears in items 25 and ...

Perumbavoor Municipality v. Kerala State Electricity Board and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 17300 of 2013

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Ashok Menon, J.
Judgment Date: 2019-02-12
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed; arrears pertaining to items 25 and 26 (8/1988–2/2000 and 12/1990–2/2000) are not recoverable due to limitation; the 12-year period governs recovery of such charges; no costs awarded; the matter clarifies that Section 71 does not convert these dues into public revenue due on land and that recovery must occur within the limitation period.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; arrears in items 25 and 26 not recoverable due to 12-year limitation; recovery of other dues subject to earlier orders; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Perumbavoor Municipality, Perumbavoor P.O., Pin - 683 542, represented by its Secretary

Respondents

The Asst. Engineer Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity Board, Perumbavoor
The Revenue Recovery Officer, Taluk Office, Kunnathunad, Perumbavoor
The Village Officer, Village Office, Perumbavoor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. M. Kurian
• K. T. Thomas
• Mathew B. Kurian
• Sunil N.

Counsels for Respondents

• Raju Joseph (Sr.)
• Nazeeba O.H.
• K. T. Paulose
• Renil Anto

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court deals with the sustainability of a revenue-recovery action by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) to recover electricity charges assessed against shop rooms licensed by the Perumbavoor Municipality. The core question is limitation. Referred from a Division Bench to a Full Bench, the matter examined whether a Government notification under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 changes the character of the dues into a public revenue on land and thus affects limitation. The Full Bench held that Section 71 enables the machinery for recovery but within the ordinary limitation period; it does not convert the dues into a public revenue on land and Article 112 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked. The Division Bench then considered whether the recovery actions could be sustained. Arrears for 26 consumer numbers were first detailed; while 1–24 had been addressed, disputes remained for items 25 and 26 (8/1988–2/2000 and 12/1990–2/2000 respectively). Notices Exts. P2 and P7 were issued, including post-demolition details, but the last dues date to February 2000, with recovery proceedings started on 01.12.2012—well beyond the 12-year limit. Relying on Abdul Vahab v. KSEB, and the Full Bench reasoning, the Court held that the amounts in items 25 and 26 were not recoverable. The petition is allowed with no costs, and the court clarifies that the 12-year limitation governs such recoveries, not a changed character of the dues.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 71, Revenue Recovery Act, 1968Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 112Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 62

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notification under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 does not convert the dues into public revenue due on land.
Arrears of electricity bills create a charge on the property.
Recovery machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act must be exercised within the statutory limitation period.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Municipality contends that it licensed shop rooms to individuals and that the liability to pay electricity charges rests on the licensees, with about 27 rooms having separate connections. The first intimation (Ext. P1, 09.03.2012) covered 26 consumer numbers, with 1–24 largely resolved or payments made under a 2015 interim order. The dispute centers on items 25 and 26 (dues from 8/1988–2/2000 of Rs. 4,26,668 and 12/1990–2/2000 of Rs. 90,516). Notices and post-demolition complexities delayed recovery. It is argued that the Board’s action should be tested against the appropriate limitation period, and that the 12-year cap is applicable. The Municipality recognizes the 12-year window, aligned with Abdul Vahab v. KSEB, and seeks to prevent recovery beyond that period; it urges adherence to the earlier orders and the proper application of law rather than recharacterization of the dues.

Contentions of Respondents

The Board contends that it has a charge for 12 years and that the actions to recover arrears must comply with Limitation Act provisions. The argument emphasizes that the machinery under Section 71 is for recovery within the limitation period, and that the notice sequence (Exts. P1, P2, P7) shows continued attempts to recover within the set framework. The Board asserts the 12-year limit applies to recovery of electricity charges as a charge on property, consistent with Abdul Vahab. It argues that the last dues date (Feb 2000) and the 2012 recovery actions are outside the permissible window, and that the Municipality should pursue other dues if appropriate under court orders.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Inspector, Toddy WWF Board v. Vijayan	2009 (1) KLT 410	Mentioned Only	The Division Bench doubted the correctness of the cited judgment and did not uphold it; the judgment is referenced but not followed.
Abdul Vahab v. KSEB	2015 (4) KHC 57	Positive	The court relies on this decision to support the 12-year limitation for recovery of electricity charges and applies it to the present case.

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 Perumbavoor Municipality v. Kerala State Electricity Board 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 23RD MAGHA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 17300 of 2013** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY PERUMBAVOOR P.O., PIN - 683 542, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI. SUNIL.N** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THER ASST.ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 542. 2 THE REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICER TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD, PERUMBAVOOR.P.O., PIN - 683 542. 3* THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, PINCODE - 683 542, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** * **R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03.09.2015 IN I.A.NO.12483/2015. BY ADVS. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.) SMT.NAZEEBA.O.H., SC KSEB SRI.K.T.PAULOSE, SC KSEB SRI RENIL ANTO, SR GP** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _W.P.(C) No. 17300 of 2013_ 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Vinod Chandran, J. The issue raised in the Writ Petition is with respect to the sustainability of the revenue recovery action taken by the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short “the Board”) to recover arrears of electricity charges due from the shop rooms of the Municipality, which were licensed to various individuals. The question raised is one of limitation. In fact, the Writ Petition along with other Writ Petitions on the very same issue had been referred by a Division Bench doubting the correctness of the judgment in _**Inspector, Toddy WWF Board v. Vijayan, 2009 (1) KLT 410**_ . The matter was then placed before a Full Bench, which considered the issue of whether the declaration of the Government, by a notification under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, would confer on the amounts due; the character of public revenue due on land. The Full Bench of this Court held that a notification under Section 71 only enables the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act to be used for recovery, which has to be _W.P.(C) No. 17300 of 2013_ 3 done within the period of limitation as provided for recovery of the said dues. The notification will not change the character of the amounts due and make it a public revenue due on land. There could also be no claim raised under Article 112 of the Limitation Act. Having answered the question referred, the Full Bench sent back the matters for consideration. A Division Bench is said to have disposed of certain appeals on that basis. The above Writ Petition is pending here from 2013 onwards. Normally, the same should be posted before the learned Single Judge having roster for such matters. However, both the parties consented to the Division Bench itself hearing the matter, since it has been pending here for long. 2. Sri.K.T.Thomas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Municipality would contend that the Municipality was letting out shop rooms on licence and the liability to pay the electricity charges was on the licencee. There were about 27 rooms in which connections were separately taken. The licencees obviously did not pay the electricity charges with respect to the rooms for long and the Municipality was _W.P.(C) No. 17300 of 2013_ 4 also not appraised of it. The first intimation as to the arrears was issued by the Board by Ext.P1 dated 09.03.2012. The arrears were computed for 26 consumer numbers. The learned Counsel would submit that with respect to 1 to 24, they are not pressing the matter, especially since in compliance of an interim order in this Writ Petition dated 18.09.2015, they have paid up such amounts. The dispute is only with respect to item Nos.25 and 26, which speaks of the dues being from 8/1988 to 2/2000 (Rs.4,26,668/-) and from 12/1990 to 2/2000 (Rs.90,516/-). 3. A further notice was issued at Ext.P2 and the petitioner-Municipality had requested the details to be supplied. In fact, the building was demolished by the time notices were issued, and there was a new building constructed at the very spot. No details were forthcoming and eventually revenue recovery notices were issued as seen from Ext.P7 series. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also points to the counteraffidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent, which indicate that the first recommendation for revenue recovery was _W.P.(C) No. 17300 of 2013_ 5 made on 01.12.2012. Based on which, Ext.P7 notices were issued in the years 2013 and 2014. 4. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Raju Joseph appearing for the Board submits that in any event the Board has a charge of 12 years. The Counsel for the petitioner also agrees to that, especially going by the ## decision of _**Abdul Vahab v. KSEB, 2015 (4) KHC 57.**_ A learned Single Judge of this Court found that arrears of electricity bills creates a charge on the property and there is a period of 12 years to enforce payment of money as per Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 5. Going by the decisions of the Full Bench and also the learned Single Judge above referred, we have to find the limitation to be 12 years for recovery of electricity charges. The revenue recovery has to be initiated within that period. The last dues arose in February 2000 and the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated on 01.12.2012, beyond the limitation prescribed. In such circumstances, we find that the dues as seen from item Nos.25 and 26 of Ext.P1 to be not recoverable. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Raju Joseph would submit that there is no evidence produced _W.P.(C) No. 17300 of 2013_ 6 as to the other 24 dues having been paid. It is for the Municipality, if at all, to proceed for recovery of other 24 dues, if the same has not been paid in accordance with the order of this Court dated 18.09.2015. The Writ Petition would stand allowed with the above observations. We make it clear that we have not, as a Division Bench, upheld the cited judgment of the learned Single Judge. We only observe that even going by the said judgment the recovery is hit by limitation. No costs. ## **Sd/-** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **JUDGE** ## **Sd/-** _dkr_ **ASHOK MENON JUDGE** _W.P.(C) No. 17300 of 2013_ 7 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.03.2012. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.07.2012. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 08.08.2012 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.12.2012 TOGETHER WITH THE STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 13.02.2013. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.03.2013 RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 14.01.2013. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 04.05.2013 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.06.2013 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.12.2014 ISSUED BY KURDFC LTD. EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 01.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1-A COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 22.2.2000 WITH THE SIGN AND SEAL OF MUNICIPAL SECRETARY** **EXHIBIT R1-A/2 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 22.02.2000 WITH THE SIGN AND SEAL OF MUNICIPAL SECRETARY** **EXHIBIT R1-B COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER.** _W.P.(C) No. 17300 of 2013_ 8 **EXHIBIT R1-B/2 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT R1-B/3 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT R1-B/4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT R1-B/5 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT R1-B/6 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT R1-B/7 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT R1-B/8 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT R1-B/9 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT R1-B/10 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT R1-B/11 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT R1-B/12 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT R1-B/13 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER.** - **EXHIBIT R1-B/14 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER.** - **EXHIBIT R1-B/15 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER.** - **EXHIBIT R1-B/16 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER.** - **EXHIBIT R1-B/17 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER.** - **EXHIBIT R1-B/18 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER.** _W.P.(C) No. 17300 of 2013_ 9 **EXHIBIT R1-B/19 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT R1-B/20 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT R1-B/21 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 SENT TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER.** **EXHIBIT R1-B/22 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2005 EXHIBIT R1-C COPY OF THE MINUTES EXHIBIT R1-D COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.BB/PBVR/201213/83 DT. 14.08.2012**