IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35323 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. VIJAYAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN, KALLUPURAKKAL THEKKETHIL KANDALLOOR SOUTH, KANDALLOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 2. PANCHAMI, AGED 60YEARS, W/O. VIJAYAN, KALLUPURAKKAL THEKKETHIL KANDALLOOR SOUTH KANDALLOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 3. PRADEEP, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAN, KALLUPURAKKAL THEKKETHIL, KANDALLOOR SOUTH KANDALLOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK 4. PRASANNA, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. VIJAYAN, KALLUPURAKKAL THEKKETHIL KANDALLOOR SOUTH KANDALLOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, HARIPPAD. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KANDALLOR VILLAGE OFFICE, KANDALLOR, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 4. LISSY , AGED 32 YEARS, W/O. PRAKASHKUMAR THETTIKKATTIL VEEDU, NALLANICKAL MURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 5. V. PRAKASHKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAN, MEENATHERIL VEEDU, RAMACHERI PERUMPALLY, ARATTUPUZH VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. ADV. SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN FOR R4 SRI.V.VENUGOPAL FOR R4 SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL FOR R4 SRI.ANIL K.NAIR FOR R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 35323 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. Petitioners 3 and 4 and respondent No.5 are the children of petitioners 1 and 2. Fourth respondent is the wife of the fifth respondent. Fourth respondent filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Haripad. The Magistrate has passed Ext.P6 order. Pursuant to the same recovery proceedings have been taken. Ext.P8 is a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. According to the petitioners, the petitioners are not parties to any of the proceedings filed by the fourth respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of the Magistrate in Ext.P6 restraining the fifth respondent from alienating his one fourth right is illegal and unsustainable. 2. I notice that there is no challenge to Ext.P6. The challenge is only against Ext.P8 notice under Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Section 7 only provides for attachment of the movables. If the movables of the petitioners are attached illegally, as held in the decision reported in M.S. Khadija v. Dy. Tahsildar (Revenue), Kotttayam (1974 KLT SN 3) the petitioners may file a claim petition before the officer attaching the movables, in which case, the officer shall consider the claim in accordance WPC.35323/2008. 2 with law before any further steps are taken. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb