IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3612 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ E.U.GOVIND, C.C.1/1390, OPP. PATTALAM MOSQUE, FORT KOCHI-1, REPRESENTED BY P/A HOLDER, K.V.RAJESWARI, RESIDING AT 1/1397, PATTALAM, KOCHI-2. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(RR), KOCHI-1. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 3612 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 4, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P4 in so far as it relates to the property belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the 2nd respondent cannot sell the property owned by the petitioner without hearing him and without demarcating the same. According to the petitioner a plot of land belonging to him and a plot of land originally owned by his father are lying contiguous and that steps are now taken by the respondents for disposal of a portion of the property which lies without demarcating the boundaries separating them. Petitioner also submits that in Ext.P2 judgment this court had directed that the disposal of the property can only be after issuing notice to the petitioner. 2. It is evident from the facts stated in the writ petition that the petitioner's father got the property by virtue of partition deed No.3527/90 executed among his family members. It is also stated that the petitioner has co-ownership in 8.3 cents of property by WP(C) 3612/08 Page numbers virtue of a settlement deed dated 16.1.1991 executed by the wife of Dr. Raveendranathan, elder brother of the petitioner's father. Thus it is obvious that the plots in question are covered by separate documents of title. 3. On instructions the learned Government Pleader submits that the proceedings initiated is against the property covered by document No.3527/1990 and that the 2nd respondent had got the property surveyed and measured and it is only after demarcating the property of the defaulter that steps have been taken for realisation of the amount due to the department. 4. From this it is evident that the property that is proceeded against does not include any portion of the petitioner's property and that the property proceeded against has been duly identified by the respondents. If that be the factual situation, the contention of the petitioner that since the property is lying contiguous, it should be identified with notice to him, has no substance. 5. In so far as the other plea raised by the petitioner that in Ext.P2 judgment, this court has directed that the petitioner should be given notice before steps are taken under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act is concerned, a reading of paragraph 4 f the WP(C) 3612/08 Page numbers judgment itself clarifies that the said direction becomes relevant only if the respondents initiate any proceedings against the petitioner's property. In this case, as is evident from what has been noted above, proceedings are initiated against the property belonging to the defaulter and covered by partition deed No.3527/90 and therefore the direction in paragraph 4 has no relevance. 6. Yet another contention that is raised by the petitioner is that coming to know of the steps taken by the respondents, the petitioner had caused Ext.P3 notice issued to the 2nd respondent and that without even replying to the same, further action has been initiated. This, on instructions, is contradicted by the learned Government Pleader by submitting that on receipt of Ext.P3, the 2nd respondent has duly replied to the counsel informing about the survey that is already conducted by the respondents. In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-