IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37213 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- HAMZA.T.P., S/O. LATE T.K.PAREED, AGED 60 YEARS, THACHAVALLATH HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. BY ADVS. SRI. K.S. DILIP SRI. SAJU N.A. SMT. LEKHA G. SRI. SAJUSH PAUL A.S. SRI. FLONY P.J. SMT. UMA G. KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 030. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR) ALUVA TALUK, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-683 101. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-683 101. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.37213 of 2010-B ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against revenue recovery proceedings initiated on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 notices. It is evident from Exts.P1 and P2 that the recovery proceedings was initiated against Sri.Reji.T.H, who is the son of the petitioner. It is further evident that the amount sought to be recovered pertains to compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, in O.P(MV) No.73 of 2007. According to the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 are threatening with coercive steps for attachment and sale of movable and immovable property belonging to the petitioner, after serving Exts.P1 and P2 notices which were issued in the name of the defaulter son. Contention of the petitioner is that eventhough the son is residing along with the petitioner, all the movables situated in the house belongs to the petitioner and the property in which he is residing is W.P(C) No.37213 of 2010-B 2 absolutely owned by him. The case of the petitioner is that the defaulter son had sold his property and that he has no right over the property in which the residential house situates. Further contention of the petitioner is that, none of the property belonging to him is liable to be proceeded against on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 notices. 2. It is noticed that, objecting to the steps alleged to have been initiated by the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 before the District Collector with copy endorsed thereon to the 2nd respondent. But, apprehension of the petitioner is that, coercive steps may be taken for attachment of the movables, even without considering Ext.P3. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 objection and to take a decision thereon as to whether the properties belonging to the petitioner can be proceeded against or not. 4. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing W.P(C) No.37213 of 2010-B 3 the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 and to take a decision thereof, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the defaulter son. Needful shall be done in this regard as early as possible, at any rate within a period two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Till such time orders are issued by the 2nd respondent on the basis of the above directions, none of the properties of the petitioner, either movable or immovable, shall be proceeded against. 6. However, it is made clear that the respondents will be free to proceed with properties if any available in the ownership and possession of the defaulter son. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.37213 of 2010-B 4