IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 638 of 2011(D) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- K.S.KRISHNADAS, S/O. K.K.SUDEVAN, 27/180, KANDATH HOSUE, FORVIEW BANGLOW, YAKKARA, PALAKKD - 678001. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT: --------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR (RR) CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN - 678101. 2. SABIR, S/O.V.A.SAITH, AMBALAYIL HOUSE, VALIATHUR P.O., VIA, CHAVAKKAD - 679563. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011 ALONG WITH WP(C). 775/2011 & WP(C) NO.734/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.638/2011, 734/2011 & 775/2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T In all the three writ petitions the common petitioner is challenging steps initiated under Section 44(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The properties which were already transferred to the 2nd respondent in all these three cases, was sought to be proceeded against for realising the tax amount in arrears due from a firm to which the petitioner was managing partner. Ext.P1 in all the three cases are the notices issued intimating the proposal to cancel the assignment deeds, holding that such transactions are illegal under Section 44(2) and intimating steps to proceed against such properties. However, it is noticed that in Ext.P1 the petitioner was given an opportunity to file objections against such proposal. It is evident that the 1st respondent has not taken any decision on the matter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner concede that W.P(C) No.638/2011, 734/2011 & 775/2011 2 the petitioner had already submitted objections against the proposals issued as per Ext.P1 and the matter is in seizin of the 1st respondent. It is further stated that a personal hearing was posted in the matter on 14.1.2011 and the petitioner had appeared before the 1st respondent. 3. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the relief sought for in these writ petitions is highly premature. Needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge proceedings if any issued by the 1st respondent on the basis of the hearing conducted, if he is aggrieved by such decision, resorting to appropriate remedy as provided under the statute. 4. The 1st respondent is directed to take a decision on the basis of Ext.P1 notice, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab