Prior mortgage prevails over later revenue recovery, and a timely objection under revenue recovery law must be decided on merits.

Later revenue recovery proceedings did not override the petitioner-bank's prior mortgage and decree because the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act creates a first charge only for public revenue due on land, section 68 is merely enabling, and section 40(2) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act does not confer overriding priority. The secured interest had crystallised before the State initiated recovery. The revenue authorities were also required to consider the bank's timely objection petition under section 46 on merits, and failure to do so was unsustainable. The writ petition succeeded, and mandamus was warranted for disposal of the objection petition while the interim stay continued until that disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether arrears sought to be recovered under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act had priority over the petitioner-bank's prior mortgage and decree; (ii) whether the revenue authorities were bound to consider the petitioner's objection petition under section 46 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.

Issue (i): Whether arrears sought to be recovered under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act had priority over the petitioner-bank's prior mortgage and decree.

Analysis: Section 3 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act creates a first charge only in respect of public revenue due on land. The Act contains no overriding clause displacing prior rights. Section 68 is only an enabling provision for recovery of other dues as arrears of public revenue and does not itself create a first charge. Likewise, section 40(2) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 creates a charge subject to the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and without overriding effect. The bank's mortgage was created long before the statutory charge arose, and the secured interest had already crystallised before the State initiated recovery proceedings.

Conclusion: The revenue claim did not take precedence over the petitioner-bank's prior mortgage, and the petitioner succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the revenue authorities were bound to consider the petitioner's objection petition under section 46 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.

Analysis: Section 46 required the objection to be dealt with on merits. The objection petition was filed immediately after service of the notice, so the objection was not time-barred. The District Collector therefore had a duty to consider and dispose of it.

Conclusion: The revenue authorities were bound to consider the objection petition, and their failure to do so was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and a mandamus was warranted directing disposal of the petitioner's objection petition while the interim stay continued until such disposal.

Ratio Decidendi: A prior mortgage and decree cannot be displaced by later statutory recovery proceedings unless the statute clearly gives overriding priority, and an objection filed under the revenue recovery procedure must be considered on merits when filed within time.

---