IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 20527 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.GIRIJAKUMARI, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O BHARGAVI AMMA, RESIDING AT R.V.K. GALAXY, FLAT NO.2, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGION REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. A.K. SANTHAKUMARI, W/O MADHAVANKUTTY, VALIYAZHIKATHU THEKKETHIL HOUSE, KURIPUZHA CHERI, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD. FOR R2,3 GP SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).20527/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 2.50 Ares of land in Resurvey No.780/9 of Kudappanakkunnu Village and a two storied building, she having purchased the same from the fourth respondent under Ext.P1 sale deed dated 13.7.2004. Petitioner thereafter, noticed that an encumbrance is noted against the petitioner, as having been made on 18.7.2005. On enquiry it was found that the encumbrance relates to an amount allegedly due from the fourth respondent to the KSFE. Petitioner made a request to the third respondent, the Special Deputy Tahsildr, to delete the encumbrance so endorsed in favour of the KSFE, in so far as the property covered by Ext.P1 is concerned. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the third respondent to do so. 2. A statement has been filed by the KSFE and a W.P.(C).20527/2008 2 reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. 3. The stand taken by the respondent is to the effect that a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act came to be issued, in favour of the fourth respondent prior to the execution of Ext.P1 sale deed and therefore, the fourth respondent came to be treated as a defaulter under the Revenue Recovery Act prior to the assignment of the property to the petitioner under Ext.P1. In the circumstances, it is contended, that the transaction in favour of the petitioner is hit by Section 44 of the Act. 4. In my view, petitioner’s request is eligible to be considered under the Act. If the petitioner had purchased a property before the coercive proceedings were taken against the same, then his claim is eligible to be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at any rate, the original defaulter has now cleared the dues to the KSFE, as evidenced by Ext.P8. If the amounts treated as dues under the Act, for W.P.(C).20527/2008 3 recovery of which a notice was issued to the fourth respondent prior to the execution of Ext.P1 Sale deed, have since been cleared by the original defaulter, then, obviously there is no warrant for continuing the attachment over the property purchased by the petitioner. This is also a matter that has to be looked into by the third respondent. 5. In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:- (i). Second respondent shall forward Ext.P6 to the third respondent who shall treat the same as a Claim Petition under the Act. (ii). An enquiry shall be conducted on Ext.P6. It is open to the petitioner to produce such materials as are deemed appropriate to prove that the property purchased by her under Ext.P1 is not liable to be proceeded against for recovery of dues from the fourth W.P.(C).20527/2008 4 respondent. (iii). Third respondent shall pass a reasoned order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs