IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6061 of 2009(C) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RAJESH, PALAPPARAMBU HOUSE, PARAL, VAZHAPALLY, CHENGANASSERI. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), CHENGANASSERI. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAPALLY WEST VILLAGE, CHENGANASSERI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 6061 OF 2009 C -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th February, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by revenue recovery steps taken. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner along with his brother purchased four Ares of property and the residential building from one Shri Josy Joseph as per Ext.P1 Sale Deed. It is stated that the brother of the petitioner received two demand notices as Exts.P2 and P3. It is stated that there is an Award by the MACT, Pala as the brother was the registered owner of an autorickshaw. It is further stated the petitioner's brother received Exts.P4 to P6 notices. Petitioner challenges Exts.P2 to P6 and seeks a mandamas restraining the respondents from enforcing Exts.P2 to P6 against the property covered by Ext.P1. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. As far as the first prayer is concerned, I notice that Exts.P2 to P6 have been issued to the WPC.6061/09 C 2 brother of the petitioner for the alleged dues from him. Petitioner cannot have a challenge to the same and I reject the first prayer. As far as the second prayer is concerned, which relates to enforcement of Exts.P2 to P6 in respect of the property mentioned in Ext.P1, even according to the petitioner, he is only a joint owner along with his brother. If there is attachment against the properties of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1, it is for him to raise a claim under Section 46 of the Revenue Recovery Act, in which case, necessarily the claim of the petitioner in regard to his right over the properties covered by Ext.P1 would have to be investigated. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: While rejecting the first prayer, there will be a direction that if the petitioner files a petition claiming his right over the properties attached, the Authority will consider his claim and take a decision in accordance with law. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.