IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 320 of 2009(K) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SAJEEVAN, S/O.DHANAPALAN, VALLARKOTTU HOUSE, VATTAPARA P.O., SANTHANPARA VIA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHANTHURANGAPARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. KSE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SUB ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, RAJAKKAD, RAJAKUMARI, SANTHANPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN R4 & R5 BY SC SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.320 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Briefly put the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner and his wife were allotted domestic electric connection. They are agricultural workers and not conducting any industry. There was a demand notice issued to the wife of the petitioner, which was challenged and this court disposed of the writ petition by Ext.P1 judgment. Petitioner's wife also filed a complaint and Ext.P2 FIR is registered. On 10.12.2008, it is the case of the petitioner that, the third respondent (Village Officer) came to the petitioner's house to attach the movables of the petitioner. Petitioner immediately filed Ext.P3 representation. It is stated that the third respondent has not conducted any inquiry. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not liable and if at all recovery proceedings can be taken, it can be taken against the properties belonging to the petitioner's wife. In pursuance of recovery proceedings directed against the property of the wife of the petitioner, certainly it is not open to the Village Officer to attach the movables WPC. 320/2009. 2 belonging to the petitioner. The property of the petitioner cannot be proceeded with unless the petitioner has any independent liability. 4. If the properties of the petitioner are proceeded against, be it movables or immovables, it shall be open to the petitioner to file a petition in respect of movables as held in the decision reported in M.S.Khadija v. Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue), Kottayam (1974 KLT SN 3) and it will be the duty of the Recovery Officer to look into the claim of the petitioner and take a decision thereon in accordance with law before proceeding further in the matter. If the immovable properties of the petitioner are attached, it is also open to the petitioner to invoke the remedy under Section 46 of the Revenue Recovery Act. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb