High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-07-30Dismissed

Sasidharan Pillai T.S. and Vijayakumari P.S. v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.26851 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2024-07-30
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed. The court clarifies that the petitioners may approach KSFE and the 1st respondent for any other repayment arrangements.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sasidharan Pillai T.S.
Vijayakumari P.S.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary, Department of Revenue
Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (KSFE Ltd) represented by its Managing Director
The Manager KSFE Ltd, Kalanjoor Branch
Special Deputy Tahsildar (RR) KSFE Ltd., RR Unit
Village Officer Kalanjoor Village Office
Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. Philip Mathews
• Ashish Mathew John

Counsels for Respondents

• Salil Narayanan, SC
• Resmi Thomas, GP
• T.C. Krishna, DSGI

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Writ Petition (Civil) challenges revenue-recovery actions taken by KSFE against two petitioners who had mortgaged a residential property and an additional plot. The 4th respondent issued a notice under Section 49(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, proposing sale of the mortgaged properties on 30.07.2024 for a dues amount said to be ₹20,79,486 (plus interest). The petitioners contend that, since the amount involved exceeds ₹20 lakhs, KSFE should have moved to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, as the Revenue Recovery Act provides no adjudicatory mechanism for such higher stakes, and that the state must protect fundamental rights including the right to life. They cite Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, Sam J. Mathews v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR), and Federal Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala to urge a jurisdictional shift to the RD/DRT process and to challenge the applicability of the RR Act in this quantum. They also point to Section 71 notification under the RR Act (1970) and its exclusion of KSFE, arguing improper scope. The petition acknowledges a prior disposal in W.P.(C) No.19953/2021 granting instalment facilities, which the petitioners allegedly failed to observe. The Court ultimately holds that liability to repay is not seriously disputed, but that the petitioners are estopped by constructive res judicata from challenging the revenue-recovery proceedings, and dismisses the petition with liberty to seek alternate repayment arrangements from KSFE.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 – Section 7Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 – Section 34Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 – Section 49(2)Section 71 notification under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (as to KSFE inclusion)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Estoppel
Constructive res judicata

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the KSFE’s coercive revenue-recovery actions cross into the realm where the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act’s adjudicatory mechanism should apply, particularly since the amount involved exceeds ₹20 lakhs. They contends that there is no adjudicatory mechanism under the RR Act for such high stakes, and that the matter should be adjudicated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. They rely on Kaushal Kishor to emphasize the state’s duty to protect fundamental rights, including life, when KSFE takes over possession of residential property. They also challenge the omission of KSFE from the Section 71 notification, implying procedural infirmities. The petition references prior W.P.(C) No.19953/2021 where instalment facilities were granted, arguing the failure to adhere to those directions should not bar subsequent relief. Finally, they urge the Court to grant relief by re-routing recovery to an RD/DRT process or by ensuring due process under the appropriate statute.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the liability to repay is not disputed; however, the quantum is contested. They point to the earlier disposal in W.P.(C) No.19953/2021, where the Court granted instalment facilities, which the petitioners did not fulfill. They contend that the Revenue Recovery Act provides the remedy for recovery and that the petitioners cannot invoke the RD&BA Act by default, especially since the petitioners had already approached this Court. The respondents rely on estoppel and constructive res judicata, asserting that the petitioners cannot now challenge the revenue-recovery proceedings. They emphasize that the sale notice under Section 49(2) is lawful within the RR Act framework and that KSFE’s actions are not violative of due process, given the jurisdictional framework and the earlier guidance from this court.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others	(2023) 4 SCC 1	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioners to support a broader duty to protect fundamental rights; court did not adopt or distinguish this ruling in its final order.
Sam J. Mathews v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR)	2019 (3) KLT 641	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioners regarding RD/DRT adjudication; court did not apply this to halt RR proceedings, instead relying on estoppel/res judicata.
Federal Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala	2023 (5) KLT 70	Mentioned Only	Cited as affirming Sam J. Mathews; used to frame background arguments but not adopted by the court in its decision.

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 Sasidharan Pillai T.S. and Vijayakumari P.S. v. State of Kerala 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 N.NAGARESH`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 26851 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 SASIDHARAN PILLAI.T.S AGED 72 YEARS S/O. K.C.SIVARAMA PILLAI, KEEZHOOTTU THAZHETHIL VEEDU, KALANJOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 689694`** - **`2 VIJAYAKUMARI.P.S AGED 67 YEARS W/O. SASIDHARAN PILLAI.T.S., KEEZHOOTTU THAZHETHIL VEEDU, KALANJOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 689694`** - **`BY ADVS. V.PHILIP MATHEWS ASHISH MATHEW JOHN`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695001`** - **`2 KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE LTD. (K.S.F.E. LTD) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REGISTERED OFFICE: BHADRATHA, P.B.NO.510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR-, PIN – 680020`** - **`3 THE MANAGER KSFE LTD, KALANJOOR BRANCH, NEAR KALANJOOR TEMPLE, KALANJOOR.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689694`** WP(C) No.26851 of 2024 : 2 : - **`4 SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.) THE K.S.F.E. LTD., R.R. UNIT, K.S.F.E. BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM, PIN – 691001`** - **`5 VILLAGE OFFICER KALANJOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, KALANJOOR.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689694`** - **`6 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE THIRD FLOOR JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001`** ## **`BY ADV`** ``` SALIL NARAYANAN SC, RESMI THOMAS, GP T.C. KRISHNA DSGI. ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) No.26851 of 2024 : 3 : ## **N. NAGARESH, J.** ---------------------------W.P.(C) No. 26851 of 2024 -------------------------------------------------- _Dated this the 30[th] day of July, 2024_ ## **JUDGMENT** The writ petition is filed challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the 4[th] respondent. 2. The 1[st] petitioner states that he was employed in Gulf countries for more than three decades. The petitioners availed loans from KSFE chitties. Property in Survey No.186/8 having an extent of 8 Ares and 5 Square meters and a residential building in Kalanjoor Village was mortgaged as security to the KSFE. In addition to that, 10 Cents of property of the 1[st] petitioner’s nephew situated in Survey No.263/12 of Kalanjoor Village was also mortgaged. 3. The petitioners state that they could not remit the amounts due to the 2[nd] respondent fully. The 2[nd] respondent initiated coercive proceedings invoking Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioners and their nephew filed W.P.(C) No.19953 of 2021 before this Court. WP(C) No.26851 of 2024 : 4 : This Court disposed of the writ petition granting time for repayment as per Ext.P1 judgment. The petitioners state that the petitioners could not repay the amount in spite of Ext.P1 facility granted. The 4[th] respondent thereafter issued notice dated 24.06.2024 invoking Section 49(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 stating that the mortgaged properties would be sold on 30.07.2024. As per the notice, an amount of 20,79,486/- is due from the petitioners along₹ with interest. 4. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the recovery amount is more than 20,00,000/-, the₹ KSFE has to invoke the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. Under the Revenue Recovery Act, there is no adjudicatory mechanism for deciding the stakes involved exceeding ₹20,00,000/-. Relying on the judgment in _**Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others** [(2023) 4 SCC 1],_ the petitioners argued that the State has a duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens, including right to life. WP(C) No.26851 of 2024 : 5 : When the KSFE is exercising a power which is not available to the KSFE and takes over the possession of the residential properties, there is infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioners and respondents 1 and 6 have to take affirmative action to protect the fundamental right of the petitioners. 5. The Counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that in Ext.P2, the amount due from the petitioners was shown as 20,79,486/- which along with interest was stated₹ to be ₹39,41,594/-. However, to the surprise of the petitioners, the respondents are claiming a much higher amount now. This is highly illegal and arbitrary. 6. The petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in _**Sam J. Mathews v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR)** [2019 (3) KLT 641]_ to contend that if any dispute is raised with respect to a debt as defined by the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, which is more than ₹10,00,000/-, an adjudication can only be done by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act WP(C) No.26851 of 2024 : 6 : and not by the District Collector under the Revenue Recovery Act. The Counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in _**Federal Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala** [2023 (5) KLT 70]_ which affirms the judgment of this Court in _**Sam J. Mathews** (Supra)_ . 7. The Counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that Section 71 notification under the Revenue Recovery Act is published in the year 1970 much prior to the enactment of the RDB Act. The failure of respondents 1 and 6 to include KSFE in the notification under the RDB Act has adversely affected the petitioners. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 9. The liability of the petitioners to repay the amount is not in serious dispute, though the quantum is highly contested by the petitioners. The petitioners would contend that since the amount sought to be recovered exceeds ₹20,00,000/-, the KSFE cannot resort to Revenue Recovery WP(C) No.26851 of 2024 : 7 : Proceedings and KSFE will have to approach either the Debts Recovery Tribunal or any other civil forum for the purpose of recovery. I find that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.19953 of 2021, when the KSFE initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioners. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court granting the petitioners facility to remit the outstanding amount in instalments. The petitioners failed to adhere to the directions given in the statement. 10. As the petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by revenue recovery proceedings earlier filing W.P.(C) No.19953 of 2021 and this Court has disposed of the writ petition with directions, the petitioners cannot now contend that the revenue recovery proceedings are not maintainable. If the petitioners had such a case, the petitioners ought to have agitated the matter in W.P.(C) No.19953 of 2021 . The petitioners are estopped from raising the plea now, by the principles of constructive _res judicata_ and the petitioners cannot challenge the revenue WP(C) No.26851 of 2024 : 8 : recovery proceedings now. In the circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioners will be at liberty to approach the KSFE and the 1[st] respondent for any other arrangement in repayment of the dues. **Sd/-** **N. NAGARESH JUDGE** MSA WP(C) No.26851 of 2024 : 9 : ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26851/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 19953/2021 DATED 08-12-2021 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT ``` ``` Exhibit P2 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24.6.24 BY FOURTH RESPONDENT TO PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 49(2 ) OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ,1968 ``` ``` Exhibit P3 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-03-2023 IN W.P.(C) 7666 OF 2023 PASSED BY HONOURABLE COURT ```