PADMAVATHY v. THE STATE OF KERALA

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 3rd 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 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P10 EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P12 EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 20.5.99 EXECUTED BETWEEN MR.KRISHNAN AND ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCE. COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.06.99 IS ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO MR. KRISHNAN. COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 6.07.99. COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.7.99 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO MR.KRISHNAN. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.8.99 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 29.7.00 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO MR. KRISHNAN. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.595/99 DATED 16.10.99 FILED BY MR.KRISHNAN BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT THALIPARAMBA. COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.1.2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.2.06 IN OP NO.4616/01 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. COPY OF THE PLAINT OS NO.13/08 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT THALIPARAMBA FILED BY LATE MR.KRISHNAN DATED NIL. COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 22.2.13 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT U/S.36 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 49 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 1.1.14 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. 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