IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6265 of 2011(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SASIKUMAR, SON OF CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, PALAMUTTATHU VEEDU, KAKKAKOTTUR, AMBALATHUMKALA P.O. (VIA) EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, SON OF P. RAGHAVAN NAIR, PALAMUTTATHU VEEDU, KAKKAKOTTUR, AMBALTHUMKALA P.O., (VIA) EZHUKONE, KOLLAM-691 505. 2. RENUKA, WIFE OF SASIKUMAR, PALAMUTTATHU VEEDU, KAKKAKOTTUR, AMBALATHUMKALA P.O., (VIA) EZHUKONE, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, S/O.P. RAGHAVAN NAIR, PALAMUTTATHU VEEDU, KAKKAKOTTUR, AMBALTHUMKALA P.O., (VIA) EZHUKONE, KOLLAM-691 505. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR, SRI.K.JAGADEESH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM-691 505. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE R.D.O., COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6265 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioners, who are husband and wife, claim to be bonafide purchasers of an extent of 15.60 Ares of property comprised in Re-Sy.No.515/15 of Block No.5 of Ezhukone Village. The purchase was effected from one Sri.Prabhakaran and Smt.Susheela. According to the petitioners, the purchase was made after verifying the encumbrance certificates with respect to the property, as evidenced from Ext.P1 and P2. Ext.P3 is the copy of the sale certificate. After purchase of the property, mutation was effected and the petitioners were regularly paying land tax due on the land. 2. By Ext.P4 proceedings issued by the 1st respondent, mutation effected was cancelled on the basis of an allegation that there existed an attachment on the property, under Section 36 of the Revenue Recovery Act, for recovery of arrears of sales tax dues from one among the W.P.(C).6265/11 -2- vendors of the property, and mutation effected during pendency of the charge with respect to dues to the Government, is unsustainable. 3. Challenging Ext.P4 order the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent as evidenced from Ext.P5. The petitioner had also submitted a representation before the 2nd respondent as evidenced from Ext.P6. He had also moved Ext.P7 stay petition before the 2nd respondent seeking stay of further steps. But through Ext.P8 the petitioner was informed by the 2nd respondent that the recovery steps could not be stayed since the amount in arrears is very high and it is beyond the powers of the 2nd respondent. It is also mentioned that since the vendors of the property are the defaulters, stay against the recovery steps could not be granted. 4. Grievance of the petitioner is that pending consideration of the statutory appeal preferred as per Ext.P5, coercive steps of recovery are now being pursued. Hence the petitioners seek interference of this court. 5. It is noticed that one among the vendors of the property was a defaulter, with respect to which revenue recovery steps were initiated. Therefore the crucial question to be considered is as to, whether the sale in favour of the petitioners W.P.(C).6265/11 -3- is binding on the Government or not ? The matter needs elaborate consideration and decision on the basis of provisions contained in Section 44(2) & (3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Further, it is evident that the petitioners are entitled to claim release of attachment, if any effected, against the property in question, by invoking Section 46 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. However, with respect to the cancellation of mutation the statutory appellate authority, the 3rd respondent, has to take a decision on the basis of Ext.P5 appeal. 6. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if the 3rd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 and if the petitioner is given liberty to raise objections before the appropriate authority, who had initiated the revenue recovery steps, against attachment of the property in question. 7. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the 1st respondent raising objection against the revenue recovery proceedings. If W.P.(C).6265/11 -4- any such objection is received by the authority concerned, the same shall be considered and disposed of, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as to the defaulter, on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 44 (2) and (3) of the Act. If the petitioners submit any such objections within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, the same shall be considered and disposed of within a period of one month thereafter. 8. Till such time the appeal under Ext.P5 is disposed of and till a decision is taken by the competent authority under Section 44(2) and (3) of the Act, further steps for sale of the property shall be kept in abeyance. 9. However, attachment effected on the property shall continue and petitioners are restrained from creating any alienation or encumbrance on the property till then. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb