IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 455 of 2011(F) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- ABU, S/O.MUHAMMAD, THERUVATH VEETTIL, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.PRAVEEN HARIHARAN SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) TALUK OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 506 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT COLELCTORATE, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 001 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 455 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by the coercive steps of recovery initiated on the basis of Exts.P3 and P4 notices issued under section 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The defaulter, against whom such notices were issued, is the son of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the defaulter son is not residing with him and he is in Bangalore. It is evident from Ext.P4 that the amount sought to be recovered is due under an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is raising threats for attachment and sale of immovable and movable properties belonging to the petitioner, in pursuance of the recovery steps. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is residing in a property which is owned by him and all the movables situated therein belongs to him. According to the petitioner the defaulter son is not having ownership or possession of the property in question and that the movable and immovable WP(C).455/2011 2 belonging to the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded against for realising the amount due from the son. It is further stated that the petitioner had submitted a complaint before the 3rd respondent District Collector requesting to refrain from proceeding against his properties. Ext.P5 is the copy of the acknowledgment evidencing receipt of such complaint by the 3rd respondent. However it is stated that a copy of the complaint is not readly available with the petitioner. 3. The issue in dispute is as to whether the property belonging to the petitioner is liable to be proceeded against for recovering the amounts covered under Exts.P3 and P4. If the property belonging to any person other than the defaulter is proceeded against, statute provides remedy by way of objection as contemplated under section 34(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act. Since the petitioner had already submitted objections in this regard, before the 3rd respondent, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider such objections and to take a decision thereof. 4. Hence the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a copy of the objection which was filed before the 3rd respondent, to the 2nd respondent within a period WP(C).455/2011 3 of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any such objection is received the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and take a decision thereon, if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. Till such time a decision is taken on the basis of the objections, no recovery steps shall be pursued against properties belonging to the petitioner, both movable and immovable. However, it is made clear that the above direction will not stand in the way of the respondents proceedings against properties belonging to the defaulter, if any available. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).455/2011 4