Bovas Lasser vs The Kerala State Financial … on 3 October, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 20339 of 2007(U)


1. BOVAS LASSER, S/O. K.P.LASSER,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.P.LASSER, S/O. PAULOSE, AGED 70,

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ, SC, KFC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :03/10/2007

 O R D E R
                         ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
               ------------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C).NO.20339 OF 2007-U
               ------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 3rd day October, 2007.

                              JUDGMENT

The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P4 communication

issued by the 1st respondent. By the impugned order request of the

petitioners for return of their documents has been turned down by

the respondents for the reason that the petitioners should remit

the revenue recovery charges.

2. It is submitted that the petitioners were defaulters to the 1st

respondent and that their request for one time settlement was

accepted by Ext.P1. Following that, the petitioners made

remittances and Ext.P2 series are the receipts issued

acknowledging the same. Thereafter, the petitioners made Ext.P3

representation requesting for return of the documents and this

has been rejected by Ext.P4 as stated above.

3. This is a case where after initiating revenue recovery

proceedings, the matter has been settled between the parties under

one time settlement. On that basis, entire amount has been paid to

WPC.NO.20339/2007. .

2

the 1st respondent. Therefore, recovery was not in pursuance to

the revenue recovery action initiated at the instance of the

Corporation. Since recovery was not in pursuance to the revenue

recovery action, there is no question of realisation of collection

charges. It has been so held by this Court in Bhaskaran v. Sub

Registrar (2005 (3) KLT 150). Therefore, I do not see any

justification for insisting on the no objection from the revenue

authorities for releasing the documents of title mortgaged by the

petitioner.

Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to

release the documents of the petitioners in relation to the loan

availed by them which has been settled as per Exts.P1 and P2.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

cl

WPC.NO.20339/2007. .

3

WPC.NO.20339/2007. .

4