IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10065 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- POOKUNJU.M., MUMTHAS MANZIL HOUSE, NO.XXXII, VALATHUNGAL P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-13. 2. TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KOLLAM-13. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM-691 011. 4. MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MAYYANAD BRANCH, KOLLAM-691 303. 5. MANAGER, CANARA BANK, THATTAMALA BRANCH, KOLLAM-691 020. R1 TO R3 BY SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC., S.B.T. R5 BY ADV. SRI.GOPINATH MENON, SC., CANARA BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10065 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by threat of coercive steps for attachment and sale of movables situated in the house, wherein he is residing. According to the petitioner, the building wherein he is residing along with his wife and the property wherein it is situated, stands in the absolute ownership and possession of the petitioner. The said property and the movables situated therein are not liable to be proceeded against under the revenue recovery steps initiated, for realising amounts due from his son to respondents 4 and 5. It is stated that, the son who is the defaulter, is not residing with the petitioner and that he has no rights over the property in question or in any of the movables situated therein. 2. However, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 representation before the 2nd respondent, objecting to the apprehended actions. It is for the 2nd respondent to conduct an adjudication on the basis of Ext.P1 and to decide whether such properties are liable to be proceeded against. I am of the 2 W.P.(C).No.10065 of 2011 view that a direction to conduct such adjudication will serve the ends of justice. 3. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 representation, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such time a decision is taken by the 2nd respondent as directed above, movables situated in the house wherein the petitioner is residing, or any immovable property belonging to the petitioner shall not be proceeded against. 5. However, it is made clear that the above direction will not stand in the way of respondents 1 to 3 proceeding with coercive steps against properties if any available, belonging to the defaulter, the son of the petitioner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/