P.C. Prasad vs The District Collector on 25 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17152 of 2008(P)


1. P.C. PRASAD, MANAGING PARTNER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE

3. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,

                For Petitioner  :DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :25/06/2008

 O R D E R
                          ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                        ===============
                     W.P.(C) NO. 17152 OF 2008 - P
                    ====================

                 Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008

                             J U D G M E N T

Petitioner submits that he has defaulted payments to the 3rd

respondent and for realising the amount due. Recovery proceedings were

initiated. While the proceedings were pending, the 3rd respondent

announced a One Time Settlement Scheme and the petitioner’s request for

extending the benefit of scheme was accepted by the 3rd respondent.

Accordingly, terms for settlement were informed to the petitioner and the

petitioner paid the entire amount due. However, for non payment of the

collection charges due under the Revenue Recovery Act, the 2nd

respondent is not issuing an NOC in order to enable the 3rd respondent to

release the documents of title deposited by the petitioner. When the

petitioner made a request to the 3rd respondent for releasing the title

deeds, he was informed that it was because of the non issuance of NOC

they could not release the title deeds. It is in such circumstances, writ

petition has been filed.

2. It is true that as the petitioner was a defaulter, recovery

proceedings were initiated, but then it was otherwise than in the course of

WPC No.17152/08

: 2 :

recovery proceedings that the liability was settled. In such circumstances,

in view of the judgment rendered by this court in Bhaskaran v. Sub

Registrar (2005(3) KLT 150) , collection charges cannot be realised.

3. Since the petitioner has settled the liability availing of the

benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme, collection charges is not payable

and the insistence of the 2nd respondent for payment of the collection

charges for issuing NOC is illegal. For this reason, I direct the 3rd

respondent to release the title deeds deposited by the petitioner without

insisting on an NOC from the 2nd respondent.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp