IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33091 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NAFEESA, AGED 59, W/O.LATE MOHAMMED KUNJI, RESIDING AT THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHAKKARAPPADAM, PERINJANAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRAN PUZHANKARA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. HEREIN BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, THRISSUR P.O – 680 001. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR P.O.-680 664. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PEIRNJANAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KODUNGALLUR P.O-680 664. 4. RAHMATH, D/O.KUNJUMOIDEEN, RESIDING AT THANDASSERRY HOUSE, PAY BAZAR, ERIYAD, KODUNGALLUR, ERIYAD P.O - 680 666. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 33091 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 1st day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Grievance of the petitioner is that coercive steps of recovery is being pursued against properties belonging to her, for realizing amounts due from her son who is at present working abroad. 2. Petitioner's son Rasheed S/o.Mohammed Kunji is a defaulter with respect to payment of amounts covered under Ext.P3 order of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungallur, in a petition filed by the 4th respondent under Section 3(2) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. For realization of the amounts due, revenue recovery steps were initiated against son of the petitioner on issuing Exts.P4 and P5 notices. According to the petitioner, the said notices were served on her and respondents 2 and 3 are now threatening attachment and sale of immovable properties belonging to her covered W.P.(C) No. 33091/2010 2 under Ext.P1 sale deed, and also the movables situated in the house contained in the said property. Contention of the petitioner is that the property which is belonging to her is no way liable to be proceeded against for realizing amounts due form the defaulter son. 3. Under the Provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, any person claiming interest on a property which is proceeded against is entitled to raise objection/ claim before the appropriate authority and such authority is at an obligation to adjudicate such claim, and to take a decision as to whether such property is liable or not. 4. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be relegated to the 2nd respondent for redressal of her grievance. If the petitioner raises any objection/claim against the proceedings, which is alleged to have been initiated against her properties, the 2nd respondent should consider and take an appropriate decision thereon. 5. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to raise claim/objection against the proceedings W.P.(C) No. 33091/2010 3 alleged to have been threatened against her properties within a period of ten days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the 2nd respondent after affording an opportunity of personal haring to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent, at the earliest possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of such claim/objection. 6. Needless to say that steps if any proposed against the immovable property covered under Ext.P1 sale deed or against any movables contained therein shall not be proceeded until a decision is taken by the 2nd respondent as directed above. 7. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of respondents 2 and 3 proceeding with steps against the person and properties of the defaulter Shri Rasheed, S/o.Mohammed Kunji, in any manner permissible under law. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.