IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8082 of 2011(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S.FORT KOCHI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED , A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,1956 WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24C,SAGAR SANGEET,58,SBS MARG, COLABA, MUMBAI 400 021, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PRAVEEN RENGARAJ. BY ADVS. SRI.K.N.SIVASANKARAN, SRI.V.V.ASOKAN, SRI.SUNIL SHANKAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR),KOCHI,FORT KOCHI- 682 001. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIOINER, SPECIAL CIRCLE (P), COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY 682 002. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY,TRIVANDRUM 695 001. 5. CARRIT MORAN AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, AN EXISTING COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,1956, WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFIC E AT 9, R.N.MUKHERJEE ROAD,KOLKATTA 700 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 8082 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the purchaser of certain immovable properties from the 5th respondent. It is alleged that the petitioner is proposing to start hospital business in the property in question. Petitioner had purchased the land through a sale deed registered and he had effected mutation of the property in the revenue records into his name. According to the petitioner, the property is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. Issue involved in this writ petition pertains to revenue recovery steps initiated against the 5th respondent for realisation of tax arrears due from them. It is the grievance of the petitioner that on the basis of Exts.P3 series and P4 series notices, now the respondents are taking coercive steps to attach the immovable property which was purchased by the petitioner and to conduct auction sale of such properties. Contention of the petitioner is that the property in question is no way liable to be proceeded against for realising amounts due from the 5th respondent. It is WP(C) .8082/2011 2 noticed that in this regard the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 objection before the 1st respondent and Ext.P6 claim petition before the 3rd respondent. Apprehension of the petitioner is that without disposal of those representations, the authorities will proceed against the property in question by resorting to coercive steps. 2. Under the above circumstance, I am of the view that the 1st respondent has to consider Exts.P5 and P6 objection and claim petition, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and to dispose of the same on merits. It is specifically pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the title of the property now stands in the name of the petitioner, proceedings could not be pursued unless steps are initiated under section 44(2) of the Act. The 1st respondent is to take note of such contentions while disposing of Exts.P5 and P6. 3. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P5 and P6, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. WP(C) .8082/2011 3 4. Till such time a decision is taken by the 1st respondent as directed above, all further steps against the property covered under Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. However it is made clear that attachment if any effected on the property will continue. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .8082/2011 4