IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 5567 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THOMAS JOHN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.LATE MATHAI JOHN, EDATHIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. TAHSILDAR (RR), PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. JOHN THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS JOHN, EDATHIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 5567 of 2009-M ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the father of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has suffered an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara. Petitioner claims to be the owner of 4 Ares and 15 Sq. meters of property. Petitioner has another son besides the 4th respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that revenue officials came to his house to attach the movables for recovering the amount due from the 4th respondent under the award. Petitioner preferred Ext.P4 representation. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not admitted that the 4th respondent is residing with the petitioner. For recovering the amount due from the 4th respondent under the award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara by Exts.P1 and P2, it is ordered that no property belonging to the petitioner can be proceeded against. If in the purport of recovery of the amount from the 4th WPC No.5567/2009 -2- respondent under Exts.P1 and P2, any movable property of the petitioner is attached, as held in M.S.Khadija vs. Dy. Tahsildar (Revenue), Kottayam (1974 KLT SN 3) if the petitioner raises a claim over it no further steps will be taken in the matter unless the claim of the petitioner is considered and a decision taken thereon in accordance with law. Needless to say if the immovable property belonging to the petitioner is proceeded against, Section 46 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act provides a remedy and if the petitioner raises a claim in the event of any attachment made of his property it is for the respondent to consider the claim and take a decision in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS