IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 29764 of 2006(R) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MR.JOSEPH @ OUSEPH, MAILADISSERIL HOUSE, MOONUTHODE BHAGAM, KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PALA, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), MEENACHIL TALUK, PALA, KOTTAYAM. * ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED R4.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23/11/06 IN IA.16219/06. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB(SR) - R4 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW - R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).29764/2006-R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:- COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.9366/06 DATED 28/03/2006. EXT.P2:- COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 28/09/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY // Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.29764/2006 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner submits that, his eldest son late Benny Joseph, was a rider in a Scooter bearing Registration No.KL-5G 632. The vehicle met with an accident, resulting in the death of not only the petitioner 's son but also two others. That apart injury was caused to yet another person. 2. Claims were filed by the dependents of the deceased and also the injured as O.P(MV) Nos.320/01,411/01 and 412/01 before the MACT, Pala. A common award was rendered by the Tribunal on 30th December, 2004 awarding compensation but however directing that the Insurance Company will be entitled to realize the amount deposited by them, from the assets of the deceased son of the petitioner and inherited by the petitioner and other legal heirs. 2 3. The petitioner submits that an execution petition was filed by the claimants and thereafter recovery proceedings were initiated against him. There upon, contending that, as he or his wife had not inherited any assets from his deceased son, is not liable to be proceeded against, a writ petition was filed before this court as W.P. (c).No.9366/06. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment, directing that the objection to the attachment and sale, has to be considered by the competent authority. 4. The petitioner submits that, nothing further was done in pursuance to Ext.P1 judgment. There upon he filed Ext.P2 requesting for issuing a possession certificate and also certificate to the effect that there is no recovery proceedings pending against him. Ext.P2 was considered by the 3rd respondent who issued Ext.P3 declining to issue a certificate as sought for by the petitioner on the basis that recovery proceedings were pending against him. It is challenging Ext.P3 that this writ petition has been filed. 3 5. As already noticed, direction in the award is that the Insurance company is entitled to realize the amount deposited by them from the assets of the deceased son of the petitioner and inherited by his legal representatives. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he had not inherited any assets from his deceased son. The fact that the liability of the petitioner to make good the amount deposited by the Insurance Company is limited to the estate of the deceased that has been inherited by him, can be of no dispute. Therefore the question to be examined is whether the petitioner has inherited any estate from his deceased son, to be made him liable in the recovery proceedings. This can be resolved only by the District Collector in an enquiry that has to be conducted. So far, none has approached the District Collector in this regard. 6. Therefore I direct that the petitioner shall raise his objection to the pending recovery proceedings, by filing an appropriate objection before the District Collector, Kottayam. It is directed that on receipt of such objection 4 from the petitioner, the District Collector shall make necessary enquiries with notice to petitioner and all others. The objection shall be filed within 3 weeks from today and the District Collector shall conduct necessary enquiries and pass orders within 8 weeks thereafter. Depending upon the outcome of the enquiry to be conducted the District Collector shall pass appropriate orders in the matter of recovery that is now pending against the petitioner. It is directed that, until orders are passed as above, the interim order dated 23.11.2006 will continue in force. Writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 5