IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36948 of 2010(P) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- C.S.SAJEEV, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. SAIDU MUHAMMED KUTTY, CHOOREKKATTU HOUSE, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN-686 101. BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JYOTHISH.J.KALLINGAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 103. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 103. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 645. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 36948 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The pleadings in this writ petition show that the petitioner along with others is having title over 38.3 cents of land covered by Exts.P1 to P3 title deeds. It is stated that the property is mutated in their favour and tax is being paid by them. Despite the above, according to the petitioner, in a proceedings against one Sri.Abdul Khader Kutty, the 1st respondent erroneously attached the property and took possession of the same pursuant to the orders passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. 2. It is stated that subsequently the aforesaid Sri.Abdul Khader Kutty compounded the cases against him, as a result of which, the learned Magistrate passed Exts.P7 and P8 orders dated 24/1/2008 and 20/2/2008 respectively directing the 1st respondent to drop all proceedings against the property and to return the Distress Warrant unexecuted. Consequently, action was not taken and when the petitioner made representations, by Ext.P9, he was informed by the 1st respondent that by his letters WPC No. 36948/10 :2 : dated 4/7/2008 and 5/2/2009, he has sought permission of the 3rd respondent and that on receipt of the permission, necessary action will be taken. Ext.P9 letter is dated 6/3/2009. There has not been any progress since then and Ext.P10 representation made by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent also has not evoked any response. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 3. Irrespective of the correctness of the attachment effected on the property in question, now that Exts.P7 and P8 orders have been issued by the Court, in my view, respondents ought to have taken immediate action and the property ought to have been released unless attachment is required to be continued for some other reason. Ext.P9 does not show that there was any other reason to continue the attachment. In that view of the matter, I see absolutely no justification for not releasing the property despite the expiry of more than two years since the issuance of Exts.P7 to P9. 4. In that view of the matter and also taking note of the statement in Ext.P9 that the mater is now pending before the 3rd respondent, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition, the 3rd WPC No. 36948/10 :3 : respondent will immediately pass orders on Ext.P10 and ensure that the property of the petitioner is released to him unless there is some other attachment in force. Orders shall be passed as above at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp