Syndicate Bank (Now Canara Bank) v. Kerala Water Authority

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 27942 OF 2013 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` *SYNDICATE BANK - SUBSTITUTED AS "CANARA BANK" AS PER THE ORDER DTD 5.4.24 IN IA 1/2024 IN THE WPC ``` ``` CHANGANASSERY BRANCH, CMC XXV/1183, PMJ CVOMPLEX, KAVALA, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, PIONEER TOWERS, SANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` K.T.SHYAMKUMAR HARISH R. MENON ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1KERALA WATER AUTHORITY P.H DIVISON, THIRUVALLA REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PIN-686 104. ``` - **`2 DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM -686 101.`** - **`3 GEORGE SEBASTIAN S/O DEVASSIA, PALKATTU HOUSE, NEAR POLICE STATION, CHANGANASSERY P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 101.`** ## **`BY ADVS.`** ``` SRI.JOSEPH JOHN, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY SRI.ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL (FOR R3) SRI.JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN SRI. VENUGOPAL V (GP) ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C)No.27942/2013 2 ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition was filed by the erstwhile Syndicate Bank, which has now been merged with the Canara Bank, challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated to recover arrears of water charges due to the Kerala Water Authority. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Changanassery Branch of the petitioner-Bank was originally housed in a rented premises belonging to the 3[rd] respondent herein. It is submitted that since regular water supply was not being provided by the 3[rd] respondent to the Branch, a water connection was taken for the use of the Branch and the water charges were originally paid directly by the Branch to the 1[st] respondent. It is submitted that the lease was being renewed from time to time and at the time of renewal, the 3[rd] respondent insisted that the water charges should be paid to him. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 lease deed W.P.(C)No.27942/2013 3 was executed on 31-07-1996 and it was clearly provided that the water charges would be paid to the 3[rd] respondent. It is submitted that Exts.P2 and P3 letters will show that, pursuant to the relevant clause in Ext.P1, water charges were actually paid by the petitioner to the 3[rd] respondent. It is submitted that by Ext.P4 lease deed, the lease was last extended and the petitioner continued in occupation of the said premises till the year 2006. It is submitted that later, the petitioner shifted its Branch to other premises and Ext.P5 is the lease deed in respect of the new premises. It is submitted that the petitioner has now been served with revenue recovery notice dated 17-08-2013 proposing to recover an amount of Rs.33,237/- towards the arrears of water charges. It is submitted that, as per the information received by the petitioner, which is on record as Ext.P8, the arrears of water charges demanded in Ext.P7 relate to the period from February 1998 to July 2005, along with the fine and surcharge. It is submitted that for the said period, the petitioner remitted the water charges by paying it to the 3[rd] respondent who may have failed to remit the same W.P.(C)No.27942/2013 4 to the Kerala Water Authority. It is submitted that at any rate, the revenue recovery proceedings have to be quashed as the claim is hopelessly barred by limitation. The learned counsel places reliance on a recent judgment of this Court in **Ajmal v. The Deputy Tahsildar;** 2024 (2) KLT 754, to contend that the 30 year period of limitation under Article 112 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Limitation Act’) would not apply to recovery of the amounts due to the Kerala Water Authority. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1[st] respondent, where it is stated as follows: “3. Water connection with consumer No. 1878/ND was provided to the petitioner Syndicate Bank, Changanassery on 15/12/1981 and it had been remitting the water charges regularly up to January 1998, but the water charges from February 1998 remains unpaid. A copy of the order of sanction of water connection to the petitioner is produced herewith and marked as **Exhibit-R1(a)** . The petitioner who was the consumer who was bound to pay the water charges. W.P.(C)No.27942/2013 5 4. The averments in paragraph 2 that in the renewed lease deed, the liability to pay water charges was that of the building owner 3[rd] respondent is not acceptable to the 1[st] respondent. Any such condition in Ext.P1 is not binding on the 1[st] respondent. So also the so called permission under Ext. P3 for paying the water charges by petitioner to the 3[rd] respondent is also not binding on the 1[st] respondent. The water connection to the petitioner was disconnected from July 2005. 5. In the light of what is stated above the petitioner is liable to remit the water charge arrears to the 1[st] respondent albeit it may be able to recover the same from the 3[rd] respondent. The 1[st] respondent is entitled to recover the amount by resorting to revenue recovery proceedings.” The question of limitation, which is specifically raised in the writ petition has not been answered by the 1[st] respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent also. 5. Having considered the contentions raised and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am constrained to hold that the petitioner is entitled to W.P.(C)No.27942/2013 6 succeed on the short point. It is clear from Ext.P8 that the arrears of water charges proposed to be recovered through revenue recovery proceedings relate to the period from February 1998 to July 2005. If Article 112 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act does not apply to the Kerala Water Authority, then the period of limitation for recovery of water charges will be under Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act and the period of limitation is only three years. This Court in **Ajmal (Supra)** held as follows: “9. When the constitution of the GCDA and its purpose are revisited by this Court, it can be seen that the said Authority cannot fall back on Article 112 of the Limitation Act and contend that it has thirty (30) years period for recovering the amounts due to it. Such an interpretation, if given would certainly do violence to the provisions under Article 112 of the Limitation Act, which is exclusively meant for suits by the Central Government or State Government. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that Article 112 of the Limitation Act would not apply to recovery measures initiated by the GCDA. 10. Next, this Court will decide the impact of the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the GCDA that it has the trappings of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Article 12 W.P.(C)No.27942/2013 7 of the Constitution of India defines the word “State”, which reads thus: ## “ **12. Definition:** In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.” Therefore, while analysing the definition given under the Constitution of India, one can find that the framers of the Constitution specifically dealt with a situation where the local and other authorities have to necessarily come within the meaning of “State”. However, when the provisions of the Limitation Act were framed by the Parliament, especially Article 112 thereof, the Parliament consciously avoided the term “other authorities”. Had the intention of the Parliament been to confer a larger period of limitation for the recovery of the dues of the other authorities also, then it would have specifically included the term “other authorities” also under Article 112 of the Limitation Act. In the absence of such inclusion, this Court has no other alternative but to reject the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the GCDA. The view taken by this Court is supported by the views expressed by **U.N. Mithra on Law of Limitation (Tagore Law Lectures), 13[th] Edition** . The learned author has opined that even under the Limitation Act of 1859, wherein Article 149 provide for W.P.(C)No.27942/2013 8 a period of 60 years for suits on behalf of the Central and State Government would not apply to local authorities or Municipalities. 11. Perhaps the first decision on the point may be found in **The Municipal Commissioners for City of Madras Vs Sarangapani Mudaliar [(1896) ILR 19 Mad 154]** , in which the High Court of Madras held that Article 149, Schedule II of the Limitation Act, applies only to suits brought by or behalf of the Secretary of the State, and there is no authority for the proposition that when the Crown has once ceded the property to an individual or corporation, it does (or can) also cede at the same time any right or privilege inherent in the Sovereign Power. 12. The principle laid down as above certainly supports the view taken by this court that the benefit under Article 112 of the Limitation Act cannot be given to an authority constituted under a Statute”. The Kerala Water Authority is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) (see Section 3 of the Act). Though Section 36 of the Act permits the recovery of amounts due to the Kerala Water Authority as arrears of land revenue, the same can only be a mode of recovery and if the claim is barred by limitation, 9 W.P.(C)No.27942/2013 recovery proceedings cannot be continued under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is only to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P7 is quashed. It is declare that the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner at the instance of the 1[st] respondent are barred by limitation. **Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE** ats W.P.(C)No.27942/2013 10 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27942/2013`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS`** - **`EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 31-07-1996 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER BANK WITH THE 3RD RESPONDENT`** - **`EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08-08-1996 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.`** - **`EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16-08-1996 SANCTIONING PAYMENT OF WATER SUPPLY CHARGES TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01-06-1992 TO 31-05-1996.`** - **`EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 30-01-2001 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`** - **`EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 19-10-2006 OF THE PRESENT PREMISES OF THE PETITIONER BANK.`** - **`EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED DATED 17-02-2011 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.`** - **`EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 17-08-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`** - **`EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-09-2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.`** ## **`RESPONDENT’S EXHIBIT`** ``` EXHIBIT R1(a)COPY OF ORDER OF SANCTION DATED 15-12-81 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. ```