IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1034 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ABIDA DEVI, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.IQBAL, ASIM MANZIL, ILLICKAL PURAYIDOM, VATTAYAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, AMBALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO, SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK, SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 658 561. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 3. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PUNNAPRA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 004. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL R3 BY ADV. SRI. SATHISH NINAN, SC, SBT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 1034 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging revenue recovery steps initiated on the basis of Ext.P3 notice. It is evident from Ext.P3 notice, which is issued under section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, that the demand is raised only against Sri.Asim, who is admittedly the son of the petitioner. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to arrears due in the loan account availed by the son. Grievance of the petitioner is that on the basis of Ext.P3, the respondents 1 and 2 are now proceeding against the movable and immovable property belonging to the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, the property in which she is residing belongs to her, upon which she had derived title by virtue of Ext.P4, and all the movables situated therein belongs to her. It is stated that defaulter son is not residing with the petitioner and that none of the properties belonging to the petitioner is liable to be proceeded against for realisation of the amount due from the son. WP(C).1034/2011 2 3. It is noticed that the basic question pertains to an objection raised against the steps of recovery on the basis that properties belonging to the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded under the revenue recovery steps now initiated. It is further noticed that the petitioner had already approached the 1st respondent through Ext.P7 objection, which presumably can be considered as an objection raised under section 34(2) of the Act. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to have an adjudication on the basis of Ext.P7 and to take a decision thereof regarding liability if any for proceeding against properties belonging to the petitioner. 4. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 objection, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. A decision in this regard shall be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment . 5. Coercive steps of recovery if any proposed against the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner which is WP(C).1034/2011 3 covered under Ext.P4 document shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken by the 1st respondent as directed above. 6. It is made clear that the directions contained above will not stand in the way of respondents 1 and 2 proceeding against properties if any belonging to the defaulter son or against any of the guarantors of the loan transaction. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).1034/2011 4