IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34607 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.VIJAYAKUMAR @ VIJAYAN,S/O.THOMSON, RESIDING AT 'NANDU BHAVAN',COMPANY MUKKU, VELLANADU VILLAGE,CHANGA.P.O,NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR SRI.S.SUNIL MOURYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THOMSON NADAR, PROPRIETOR, THOMSON GRAPHITE MINES AND CRUCIBLE WORKS, COMPANY MUKKU, VELLANADU.PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. C.GOMATNY AMMA, RADHAKRISHNA HOUSE, ELAMKULAM, KUNNANTHUMURI,CHERUVIKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.34607 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Grievance of the petitioner is that property settled in favour of him by the 3rd respondent by virtue of Ext.P1 deed executed in the year 1999, is sought to be proceeded against on issuing Ext.P4 notice under the Kerala Revenue Recovry Act, for realisation of amounts due from the 3rd respondent towards compensation awarded under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a criminal case instituted alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner the judgment in the criminal case was pronounced by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (IV), Thiruvananthapuram, only in the year 2000, after execution of Ext.P1 settlement deed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrate was ultimately modified in revision by this court as evidenced from Ext.P2 dt: 27.7.2006, and that the 3rd respondent had undergone imprisonment in satisfaction of the default sentence imposed. 2. However, contention is that the property covered under Ext.P1 absolutely belongs to the petitioner and the same W.P.(C).34607/09-U 2 could not be proceeded against pursuant to the revenue recovery steps initiated against the 3rd respondent. 3. On going through Ext.P4 notice it is evident that the same is issued only in the name of the 3rd respondent. It does not mention anything about the property covered under Ext.P1 deed. But learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revenue authorities had demarcated a portion of the property covered under Ext.P1 and steps are being pursued for attachment and sale of the property. 4. It is noticed that as per Section 46 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 any person other than the defaulter can object to attachment of any immovable property on the ground that such property is not liable for the arrears of public revenue sought to be recovered. Therefore it is clear that if property belonging to the petitioner is proceeded with, he can very well approach the concerned authority raising objection against such proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is ready and willing to approach the 2nd respondent with such objection. 5. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to remedy available under Section 46 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. If the petitioner W.P.(C).34607/09-U 3 makes any objection before the 2nd respondent in this regard, the same shall be considered and disposed of, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such objection. 6. Needless to say that further coercive steps for attachment and sale of the property shall be pursued only after disposal of such objection if any received. It is made clear that the above direction will not preclude the authorities from proceeding against the 3rd respondent with any coercive steps permissible under law, for recovery of the amounts. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb