High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
M.D.PATHROSE, MANICHERRY HOUSE v. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION - WP(C) No. 21912 of 2007(H)  RD-KL 17459 (18 September 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 21912 of 2007(H)
1. M.D.PATHROSE, MANICHERRY HOUSE,
1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R),
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
For Petitioner :SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
W.P.(C) NO. 21912 OF 2007
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Standing counsel takes notice for R1. Government Pleader takes notice for R2 and R3.
2. Heard counsel for both sides.
3. The petitioner had availed a loan from the first respondent and there was some default in repaying the said loan, consequent to which, recovery proceedings were initiated by the respondents. At that stage there was one time settlement scheme for the first respondent, which was availed of by the petitioner and the entire amount has been paid, the receipt of which has been acknowledged by the 1st respondent as per Exts. P1, P2 and P3. Thereupon the first respondent by Ext.P4 letter intimated the same to the 2nd respondent also. However, the title deed of the property mortgaged by the petitioner has not been released by the 1st respondent and this refusal is for the reason that clearance certificate has not been issued by the 2nd WPC 21912/07 respondent. The representation made by the petitioner in this behalf is Ext.P6. Standing counsel for the KFC submits that in terms of their procedure, in the absence of a clearance certificate from the revenue recovery authorities, title deeds cannot be released. The learned Government Pleader also submits that since revenue recovery proceedings were initiated, there is liability for the parties to pay collection charges, in the absence of which clearance certificate cannot be issued.
4. I consider this to be an extreme case of arbitrariness. This is a case where the KFC has accepted from the petitioner entire amount due to them in terms of the one time settlement scheme. If that be so, revenue recovery proceedings, though initiated against the petitioner, did not lead to recovery of any amount from the petitioner. If that be the position, in terms of the judgment of this court in Bhaskaran v. Sub Registrar (2005(3) KLT 150) collection charges cannot be levied from the petitioner. Even otherwise, by virtue of the proviso that is introduced to Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act, it is the institution on whose behalf recovery is made, that is liable to pay WPC 21912/07 the collection charges and not the defaulter. The KFC never made the payment of collection charges for accepting payment from the petitioner in terms of the one time settlement scheme, the benefit of which has been availed of by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the so called procedure of waiting for the clearance certificate cannot be a reason for delaying release of the documents submitted by the petitioner.
5. Thus it is totally an arbitrary act on the part of the first respondent to decline to release the documents and there is absolutely no justification for the same. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent to release the title documents of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.Rp
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.