IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10059 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SANKARI AMMA, CHITTETHU HOUSE, KUDASSANAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAMEL, NOORANAD, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 3. MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK BRANCH, KKUDASSANAD, KUDASSANAD (P.O), MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 10059 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 26th March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner’s son one Hemachandran, apparently, availed a loan under the PMRY Scheme for self employment, from the 3rd respondent Bank for purchasing an autorickshaw. Apparently there was default in repayment of loan and the bank authorities requisitioned proceedings under the Revenue Recovery. Exhibit P3 is the notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, petitioner is not shown as a defaulter. It is her son who is shown as the defaulter. Petitioner should not normally be aggrieved by Exhibit P3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exhibit P3 is not to be enforced against the property belonging to the petitioner including the movables kept in her house which she claims belongs to her. Hence the writ petition claiming the following reliefs: “to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents not to proceed against the petitioner or in movable properties belonging to the petitioner or movable properties belonging to her within and the premises of W.P ( C) No. 10059 of 2008 2 House No.129 in Ward No.V of Palamel Panchayat (Present House Number and any future corresponding Number) towards recovery of any dues as per Exhibit P3 notice issued in the name of Mr.Hemachandran”. 3. Property belonging to the defaulter alone can be proceeded against in revenue recovery. If the petitioner has a case, that proceedings are taken against the property belonging to her in the course of enforcement of Exhibit P3, it is up to her to file objections in that behalf pointing out that the property belonging to her cannot be accessed for recovery of dues from her son. Essentially, the petitioner will have to demonstrate that the house belongs to her and the movables also belong to her. It is a matter for enquiry . In the result, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a representation before the 1st respondent pointing out these aspects within a period of three weeks from today. If it is so done, it shall be looked into and a reasoned order will be passed by the 1st respondent after issuing notice to 3rd respondent also, before proceeding with the enforcement of Exhibit P3 against the property belonging to the petitioner. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 10059 of 2008 2 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 W.P ( C) No. 10059 of 2008 2 ORDER 25th May, 2007 Common issues are raised for consideration in all these writ petitions. Reference is made to the facts in Writ Petition No.4562/2008 for the sake of convenience.