IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2011/1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6046 of 2011 (E) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- V.MANI, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.VELU, VARIKKATTIL HOUSE, ANGADYPURAM P.O. PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 679321. BY ADV. SMT.A.P.LALY @ LALY VINCENT RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, PERINTHALAMANNA - 679 329. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM - 679 329. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505. 4. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PERINTHALMANNA - 679 329. 5. P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. K.P.CHANDU,KADAMPOTTUPADATH, UATHAMBALAM, MANNARKAD, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 6. REMESHAN, S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR,CHALIL HOUSE, GOVINDAN, ERENHOLI P.O., THALASSERRY, KANNUR - 670 101. 7. MOHANAN V.S/O. MANI, VARIKKOTTIL HOUSE, ANGADIPURAM - 670 101. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN R4 BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 6046/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT OF THE LOAN AMOUNT BY R7. P1(a):COPY OF RECEIPT OF THE LOAN AMOUNT BY R7. P2: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE INITIATED AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6046 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a person aged 60 years, residing in 8 cents of property owned by him. The 7th respondent, who is the son of the petitioner, stood as a guarantor with respect to a loan availed by the 5th respondent, from the 4th respondent Bank. Grievance of the petitioner is that, on the basis of revenue recovery steps initiated against respondents 5 to 7, pursuant to Ext.P2 notice, the respondents 1 to 3 are threatening with coercive steps for attachment of the movables situated in the house of the petitioner and also with steps for attachment and sale of the property in question. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, the property in question and the residential house contained therein are the absolute properties of the petitioner, upon which the 7th respondent has no manner of right. Hence the property belonging to the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded against on the basis of the revenue recovery steps, is the 2 W.P.(C).No.6046 of 2011 contention. 3. In the statement of the 4th respondent it is stated that, the 7th respondent had approached the Bank and a compromise settlement has already been arrived on 15.3.2010, pursuant to which remittance was already made to the extent of Rs.2 lakhs. 4. However, the basic question raised is regarding sustainability of the actions threatened against properties of the petitioner. The petitioner has got an effective remedy to object such action if any taken against his properties, under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, by claiming release of the property from attachment, if any made. Therefore, I am of the view that, the petitioner can be relegated to the authority concerned. 5. If the petitioner submits an objection/claim to the 1st respondent against the steps alleged to have been threatened against his properties, the same shall be considered and adjudicated upon by the 1st respondent. A decision with respect to the proceedings if any proposed shall be taken by the 1st respondent on the basis of such adjudication to be 3 W.P.(C).No.6046 of 2011 conducted, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the petitioner submits any objection in this regard, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the 1st respondent shall take a decision thereof, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of such objection. 6. Needless to say that, till a decision is taken on the matter as directed above, recovery steps if any intended against properties of the petitioner wherein he is residing, both movables and immovables, shall be kept in abeyance. 7. It is made clear that, the above judgment will not stand in the way of respondents 1 to 4, taking any appropriate actions against properties of the defaulters (respondents 5 to 7). The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions and observations. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge