IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32743 of 2010(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.JABBAR, S/O.MUHAMMED, KADUNGALLUR HOUSE, NEAR THOLANUR HIGH SCHOOL, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR, SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 32743 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is facing revenue recovery steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 series demand notices. The amount in arrears pertains to liability under an award dated 29-7- 2009, in O.P.(MV) Nos.512 and 513 of 2006, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 notice issued by the 2nd respondent under the provisions of section 44(3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. By the said notice the petitioner was requested to show cause as to why the sale deed executed by him as per document No.4957/09 of Alathur Sub Registrar Office in relation to 0.0444 Hectare of property comprised in Sy. No.79/10 in Block No.11 of Kunnathur-2 Village shall not be cancelled. By the said notice the petitioner was also called upon for a personal hearing on 21-10-2010. W.P.(C) No. 32743/2010 2 2. According to the petitioner, he appeared before the 2nd respondent and submitted Ext.P4 objections, contending that the document in question is not liable to be cancelled, as the transfer was effected not with an intention to defeat the recovery steps nor it is a transfer which is coming within the purview of section 44(3) of the Act. 3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the relief sought for in this writ petition for quashing the proceedings initiated by virtue of Ext.P3 notice, is highly premature. Going by provisions contained in section 44 of the Act, it is evident that the 2nd respondent is at an obligation to take an appropriate decision on the basis of Ext.P3 notice, considering Ext.P4 objections. I do not find any reason to presume that the 2nd respondent will proceed with further actions without considering the objections and without issuing a proper proceedings enumerating the decision taken thereof. It is pertinent to note that if any decision is taken by the 2nd respondent, in prejudice to interest of the petitioner, the petitioner is provided with an W.P.(C) No. 32743/2010 3 effective alternative remedy under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 4. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take appropriate decision, as provided under section 44, after considering objections raised by the petitioner under Ext.P4. 5. Needless to say that any further steps of recovery against the property in question can be pursued only on communicating such decision to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedies, if he is aggrieved by such decision. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.