IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34638 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.J.MATHEW, KUMMINIYIL HOUSE, PALLIKKUNNU, CHITTARIKKAL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671121. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671321. 3. CANARA BANK, CHITTARIKKAL BRANCH, CHITTARIKKAL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-671326. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN STANDING COUNSEL SRI.V.B.HARINARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 34638 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 1 and 2 are taking coercive steps against immovable and movable properties of the petitioner pursuant to revenue recovery steps initiated on the basis of Exts.P2 and P3 notices. The amount sought to be realised pertains to default committed by the son of the petitioner, in repaying amounts due to the 3rd respondent Bank under a loan transaction. Contention of the petitioner is that, he is residing in a property which is owned by him, upon which he derived title by virtue of Ext.P3 settlement deed, and the defaulter son is not residing with him and there are no properties of the defaulter available in the premise. 2. Compliant of the petitioner is that the respondents 1 and 2 are threatening with coercive steps 2 WP(C) No. 34638/2010 for attachment and sale of the movables belonging to him and also threatening with steps against the immovable property covered under Ext.P1. It is contended that any of the properties belonging to the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded against for realising amount covered under Exts.P2 and P3. However the petitioner has submitted an objection before the first respondent as evidenced from Ext.P4. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the question to be decided is as to whether the property belonging to the petitioner is liable to be proceeded against pursuant to the revenue recovery steps initiated under Exts.P2 and P3. The authority concerned to conduct adjudication with respect to the above question is the first respondent, before whom the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4. Therefore interest of justice will be served by directing the first respondent to conduct an adjudication on the basis of Ext.P4 and to take a decision as to whether 3 WP(C) No. 34638/2010 properties are liable to be proceeded against or not. 4. Under such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Needless to say that recovery steps against movable and immovable properties of the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken by the first respondent as directed above. 6. It is made clear that this will not prevent the authority concerned from proceeding with recovery steps against any of the properties belonging to the son, who is the defaulter. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc