IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38175 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJASHKUMAR.C.C,S/O.C.V.CHANDRAN, CHERINGAL VEEDU,ANIKKODE,KARIYANKODE, KOTTAYI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE CIVL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. TAHSILDAR(RR),CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD - 678 001. 3. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD - 678 001. 4. N.D.SIVADAS, S/O.DAMODHARAN,HOUSE NO. 9/63,NEAR PARAKKUNNAM MASJID,PALAKKAD - 678 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.38175 of 2010-V ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is approaching this Court aggrieved by coercive action initiated on the basis of Ext.P5 notice issued by the 2nd respondent proposing to proceed against the property belonging to the petitioner, invoking Section 44(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 2. The petitioner had purchased the property covered under Ext.P1 sale deed from the 4th respondent. The 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P2 notice under Section 46 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, for realising the amount due from the 4th respondent, which pertains to amount of compensation ordered by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad. It is the case of the petitioner that even the order of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which was an ex-parte order, was subsequently set aside by virtue of Ext.P3 order issued in I.A.No.16/2007 and 17/2007. W.P(C) No.38175 of 2010-V 2 Therefore the contention of the petitioner is that the demand does not exist as such. Eventhough the 4th respondent had approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad by filing an application to withdraw the revenue recovery proceedings, the said Forum had dismissed the application through Ext.P4 order, observing that the property was already attached by revenue recovery proceedings. Therefore the petitioner is now aggrieved by steps initiated under Ext.P5 to proceed against the property in question. 3. It is evident that the revenue recovery steps was initiated for realizing amounts ordered by the District Consumer Redressal Forum. From Ext.P3 it is evident that the order of the Forum was subsequently set aside. Therefore it is clear that there is no liability existing at present, which is due from the 4th respondent. Since the petitioner had purchased the property from the 4th respondent, the proceedings now initiated on the basis of Ext.P5 will sustain only if there is any liability due from the W.P(C) No.38175 of 2010-V 3 4th respondent. Therefore, I am of the view that the proceedings need not be pursued under the above circumstances. 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the revenue recovery steps initiated against the property covered under Ext.P1 on the basis of Exts.P2 and P5 notices are hereby quashed. 5. Needless to say that the respondents will be at liberty to take appropriate steps against the property in question, if permissible under law, in case any subsequent order awarding compensation is issued by the Consumer Forum. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab