IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8623 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JOMON JOHN S/O.LATE LOHN, AGED 43 PUTHOOPARAMBIL, SEAVIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 031. 2. SOLY JOMON, W/O. JEOMON JOHN, AGED 33, PUTHOOPARAMBIL, SEAVIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA - 688 031. 3. R.ANANDAKUMAR, S/O.LATE RAMAMOORTHY - RADDIAR, AGED 40, SABARI HOUSE, MUNICIPAL OFFICE WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 4. NAGARANI ANANDAKUMAR, W/O.ANANDAKUMAR, AGED 44, SABARI HOUSE, MUNICIPAL OFFICE WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES SMT.K.V.RAMYA SRI.ARUN ALEX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 3. TAHSILDAR (RR), AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA - 688 561. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, ARYADU SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 542. 5. THE COMMERCIAL AND SALES TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE II, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2 WP(C).No. 8623 of 2011(C) 6. K.N.LIGHTO, S/O.E.K. NARAYANAN, AGED 47, KANJIPARAMBIL, KALOOR DESOM, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 682 017. BY ADV.SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.8623 of 2011-C ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Grievance of the petitioners is against Ext.P5 notice issued by the 3rd respondent. Through Ext.P5 notice the petitioners were required to show cause as to why the proceedings under Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act should not be initiated with respect to transfer of immovable property, which was purchased by the petitioners from the 6th respondent. It is evident that the 6th respondent had defaulted payment of arrears of sales tax for which revenue recovery steps were initiated against him. Through Ext.P5 it was intimated that the transfer of the immovable property purchased by the petitioners from the 6th respondent is hit by provisions of Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Hence the proposal is to proceed against the said property. 2. It is evident that on receipt of Ext.P5 notice, the petitioners have submitted Exts.P6 and P6(a) objections. It is obligatory on the part of the 3rd respondent to have an adjudication on the basis of the objections raised and to take a W.P(C) No.8623 of 2011-C 2 decision as contemplated under Section 44, before proceeding with any further steps. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is highly premature. It is further noticed that if any decision is taken by the 3rd respondent against the interest of the petitioners, they have got further statutory remedies as provided under Section 83(1) and (2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Under such circumstances interest of justice will be served by directing the 3rd respondent to have an adjudication with opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioners. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to have an adjudication on the basis of Ext.P5 notice to which the petitioners have submitted Exts.P6 and P6(a) reply, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, as well as to the 6th respondent. It is made clear that the petitioners will be at liberty to pursue further statutory remedies, if they are aggrieved by any decision which will be taken by the 3rd respondent. Needless to say that further steps pursuant to Ext.P5 can be pursued only after taking such decision. W.P(C) No.8623 of 2011-C 3 4. The petitioners had raised yet another contention to the effect that the 6th respondent, who is the defaulter, has got immovable property, which is situated adjacent to the properties which was purchased by the petitioners. It is the complaint of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent is not taking any effective steps against the said properties for realising the amounts due from the 6th respondent. It is only just and proper on the part of respondents 2 to 4 to take effective steps to recover the amounts by proceeding against the property, if any belonging to the defaulter, the 6th respondent herein. Therefore, the respondents 2 to 4 are directed to take effective steps in this regard without any further delay. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab