IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 9733 of 2009(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- FARIDHA HAJI VAHEED, PROPRIETOR, M/S.SOUTH ASEAN TRADE LINKS, G-211 MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 5. MAITHEEN, S/O.KATHIR, MATTATHIL, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA. ADDL.R 6. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER. (SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.11.09) R1 TO R4 BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPILLY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BKA WP(C).No. 9733 of 2009(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.1023/2008 IN ST REV.11/08 DATED 07.07.2008. EXT .P2 COPY OF THE MATTER TELEGRAPHED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE PETITION NO.40455 DATED 07.07.2008. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 21.10.2009. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.10.2008. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE NORDER OF CONFIRMATION PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.10.2008. RESPONDENT'(S) ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 9733 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T When the matter was taken up for hearing, Sri. Raju Joseph, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per order No:P.756286 of 2009 dated 31.08.2009, the sale which was the subject matter of the above writ petition has been set aside by the Commissioner of Land Revenue. In the circumstances, the prayer in the writ petition is substantially allowed. However, the learned senior counsel also submits before me that the second prayer of the writ petition that the property of the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded against for the tax dues of M/s International Trade Links owned by Sri. Abdul Kalam Asad, her husband, has also to be considered. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is not a partner WP(C) NO. 9733 OF 2009 ..2.. or in any way participating in the said firm, the petitioner's property cannot be proceeded against merely for the reason that her husband has sales tax dues in the business conducted by him. In the circumstances of the first prayer having been allowed by the Land Revenue Commissioner in the revision filed by the petitioner, as noticed above, the writ petition is disposed of with the observations without costs. K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE bka/-