IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.A.No.473 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.NO.9052/2003(C) DATED 11/08/2005 .................... APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS:- -------------------------------------------- 1. CHINNAMMA SIMON, W/O.LATE MATHAI SIMON, MELEKIZHAKKETHIL MULLASSERIL HOUSE, NARANGANAM POST AND VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SURESH SIMON, S/O.LATE MATHAI SIMON, MELEKIZHAKKETHIL MULLASSERIL HOUSE, NARANGANAM POST AND VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- -------------------------------------------------- 1. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER, CHENGANNUR. 2. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), KOZHENCHERRY TALUK AT PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NARANGANAM VILLAGE OFFICE, NARANGANAM P.O., KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.473 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 26th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No,.9052 of 2003 dated 11th August, 2005. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioners, if they so desire, to make an appropriate application before the revenue recovery officer himself. 2. Petitioners claim that they are legal representatives of one late Mathai Simon. 3. In the writ petition filed by the petitioners, they had called in question the recovery proceedings initiated by the revenue recovery officer pursuant to the orders of assessment passed by the assessing authority. 4. It is the claim of the petitioners that they had not inherited any property whatsoever from late Mathai Simon and therefore, the revenue recovery officer cannot proceed against their property. 5. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, being of the opinion that if that was their contention the same requires to be agitated firstly before the revenue recovery authority by way of filing a claim petition. 6. The Revenue Recovery Act provides for filing a claim petition if for any reason, the persons interested in the land or in the immovable property claim that they have absolute interest and the same cannot be attached or so for realising the arrears of sales tax or arrears of any other tax due under the Act. W.A.No.473 of 2008 2 7. In view of the alternative and effective remedy that is provided under the Revenue Recovery Act itself, it may not be necessary for us to take exception to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, while concurring with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) JUDGE vns