IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 36753 of 2007(A) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/05/2007 IN & 16/2006 IN A.NO..10/2006 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- P.MATHEW, AGED 49, S/O.VARGHESE, PERIYAPURATH P.O., PAYYANNUR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE RECOVERY INSPECTOR, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PUNNAD BRANCH, PUNNAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAYAM VILLAGE OFFICE, TALASSERY TALUK. 5. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALASSERY TALUK OFFICE, KANNUR. 6. M/S.SIRA PHARMA LTD., P.P. 1/507, NEERAKKAL, MATTARA ROAD, IRRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATHEW KORA, 350, BANK COLONY, 4TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, BOGATHI, MYSORE. 7. JOSEPH CHANDY, S/O.CHANDY, THOTTUVELIYIL, PATTUVAM ROAD P.O., TALIPARAMBA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN R3 (BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) ( SRI.SAJI VARGHESE R7 BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.36753/2007 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE FINAL COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE D.R.T., ERNAKULAM IN APPEAL NOS.10 AND 16 OF 2006 DTD.21/05/07. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 3/09/07 AND OTHER DATES. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, TRUE COPY ISSUED ON 30/11/07. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 5/12/07. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE SECOND SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 5/12/2007. 7TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R7(A): COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 12/12/2005 WITH LOCATION SKETCH AND MAHAZAR OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAYAM. EXT.R7(B): COPY OF THE PLAN NO.1 ATTACHED TO THE LETTER DTD. 27/01/2006 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAYAM. EXT.R7(C): COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 26/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAYAM. EXT.R7(D): COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 29/10/2007 BY THE MANAGER, PUNNAD BRANCH. EXT.R7(E): COPY OF THE REPORT TOGETHER WITH THE PLAN OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAYAM. EXT.R7(F): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION I.A.NO.1870 OF 2007 FILED BEFORE THE RECOVERY OFFICER. EXT.R7(G): COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN I.A.NO.1870 OF 2007 DTD. 9/11/2007. EXT.R7(H): COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER DTD. 5/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.36753 of 2007-A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner is a transferee of an item of property that belonged to a debtor under a recovery certificate pending enforcement before the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. According to him, the recovery certificate and the enforcement is in relation to another parcel of property belonging to the debtor and unconnected with the property purchased by the petitioner. The seventh respondent is the auction purchaser before the Recovery Officer. The issue in hand is regarding the identity of the property covered by the recovery certificate and its isolation from the WP(C)36753/2007 -: 2 :- property claimed by the petitioner. The issue raised is as to whether it would be sufficient that the measurements are made by a village officer or whether the taluk surveyor should be brought in, to measure the property with reference to survey records available in the taluk office. This is an issue that can be looked into by the Recovery Officer and appropriate orders issued because, questions relating to discharge, execution and satisfaction of the recovery certificate are to be considered first by the Recovery Officer and any dispute between the parties can also be carried to the DRT. 2.Under such circumstances, the Recovery Officer is directed to hear the writ petitioner and the seventh respondent, as also the third respondent bank and take a decision, including on the contention of the seventh respondent that it is the admitted situation that the parties are governed by certain plans approved by the petitioner. This issue shall be particularly focused by the WP(C)36753/2007 -: 3 :- Returning Officer. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/