IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22077 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SYAMALA DEVI, W/O.JANARDHANAN NAIR, SHYAM NIVAS, KANJIRAMATTOM,THODUPUZHA. 2. SUJA J NAIR,D/O.JANARDHANAN NAIR, SHYAM NIVAS, KANJIRAMATTOM,THODUPUZHA. 3. GEETHA J NAIR, D/O.JANARDHANAN NAIR, SHYAM NIVAS, KANJIRAMATTOM,THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR. P.P.THAJUDEEN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), MINI CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.K. BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 22077 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 12th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioners who are the widow and the daughters of the defaulter is that, the respondents are not justified in proceeding with the coercive steps under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realization of the amount stated as due from the defaulter, who is no more, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioners have not inherited any property from the deceased defaulter. 2. The learned Senior Government Pleader, with reference to the materials on record submits on instructions that, the petitioners are not indebted to the first respondent in any manner and the default is actually from the part of the deceased husband of the first petitioner (father of the other petitioners) who retired from the service as a Tahasildar and that Exts. P1 and P2 notices were issued for realization of the dues in respect of the loan availed by the deceased defaulter. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, the petitioners have already filed Ext.P3 representation pointing out the actual facts and figures before the second respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the concerned property was purchased by the first petitioner, who was a bank employee and that the movables in the dwelling house exclusively WP (C) No. 22077 of 2009 : 2 : belong to her and the other petitioners, asserting that no property whatsoever has been inherited by the petitioners from the late Janardhanan Nair, the defaulter. 4. In the above circumstances, it is made clear that, the respondents are not entitled to proceed with the coercive steps pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2, against the petitioners or the properties owned, possessed and enjoyed by them, except in respect of the properties, if any, which originally belonged to late Janrdhanan Nair/defaulter and came to the hands of the petitioners, by virtue of their being the legal heirs or involving any instance as envisaged under Section 44 (3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd