IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 10842 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- PADMAVATHY, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.LATE MADHAVAN, MANJAMKUZHI HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU KARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR) RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR. ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED. 3. KERALA MOTOR THOZHILALI WELFARE BOARD, ERNAKULAM. ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.4.2008 IN I.A.5242/08. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR ADDL.R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 10842 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the widow of late Sri.Madhavan. According to her she and her husband jointly purchased three and a half cents of property with a house in it. According to the petitioner, during the lifetime of Sri.Madhavan, he had executed a Will in favour of the petitioner and she is in possession and enjoyment of the property. According to her, she is maintaining her life from the meager income derived from a small shop. The second respondent has served Ext.P4 recovery notice to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it is without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is her case that she filed Ext.P5 representation. According to her, the property is not liable for any debt incurred by her son. Accordingly, she seeks to quash Ext.P4 notice. 2. The additional third respondent, namely, the Welfare Board has filed a statement inter alia stating that the respondent had initiated assessment of stage carriage bearing KL-7 D 4118 for the period from 1997- 2004. In order to assess the vehicle notices were issued under Section 8(1) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act to WPC.10842/2008. 2 Sri.M.K.Satheesh to appear for conducting an inquiry in respect of the employees employed by him in the stage carriage. He appeared and deposed that he is the registered owner of the stage carriage and he along with Sri. K.G. Raveendran, Sri. Subramoniam and Sri. Satheesh were the employees (Ext.R3(a)). Provisional determination order was issued . Since no objections were filed, the provisional determination order was confirmed and issued the final determination order dated 29.6.1999. In the appeal preferred the matter was remanded back. After remand a revised order dated 31.12.2001 was issued for the same amount. A provisional determination order dated 30.8.1999 was issued to Sri.Satheesh for the period 1997-98. Again no objections were filed and the provisional determination order was confirmed and final determination order was issued. Sri. Satheesh filed appeal, which is still pending before the Government. For the periods 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 final determination orders were issues. Since Sri. Satheesh did not remit any amount for the periods from 1997 to 2004, revenue recovery requisition was issued by the third respondent to the second respondent to initiate recovery steps against Sri.Satheesh. WPC.10842/2008. 3 2. There is no challenge against the determination orders, apparently on the basis of which recovery notices have been issued. I am not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the recovery as such. What is challenged is only the recovery notices. The ground taken is that the will executed by Sri.Madhavan is apparently in regard to his share to the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. 3. Learned Government Pleader was directed to get instruction as to why property of the petitioner is proceeded against for recovery of the amount due from her son. Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner had in fact filed two civil suits and both of them were dismissed as not pressed. The fact of the filing of the civil suits is not mentioned in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner then points out that the petitioner is a widow aged 65 years and the proceedings may be concluded in accordance with law. It was argued that having regard to the share of the petitioner recovery cannot be made. Going by Ext.P3, which is purported to be the Will, it has only one attesting witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to tell me how the will can be treated as a valid will. If that be so, in regard to the right of Sri.Madhavan it must be taken that Sri.Madhavan died intestate leaving the heirs including the petitioner WPC.10842/2008. 4 and also her son. If that be so, there cannot be anything illegal in proceeding against the share of the defaulter for the amount due from him. Subject to making it clear that proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act can be proceeded strictly in accordance with law, the writ petition is disposed of. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb