IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6414 of 2010(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MARIAMMA JOSEPH, W/O. LATE K.M. JOSEPH, KUNJAPPU HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR - 27. BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN MANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), THRISSUR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KANIMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 6414/2010-B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.1270/95 DATED 18/02/1995 OF SRO AYYANTHOL. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/02/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 6414 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Grievance of the petitioner is that movables situated in the residential house of the petitioner is being proceeded against under the Revenue Recovery Act, for realizing amounts due from her elder son, who is having only 1/6th right over the properties wherein the house is situated. According to the petitioner, her elder son is not residing with her and the movables do not belong to him. Ext.P1 is the partition deed with respect to the property wherein the house is situated. The partition was effected between the petitioner and her five sons. Admittedly, the defaulter holds 1/6th right over the property. Hence, any proceedings with respect to the share held by elder son of the petitioner (defaulter) in the property could not be assailed by the petitioner, in any manner. 2. With respect to movables situated in the house, the petitioner had objected to the steps by filing Ext.P2 before W.P.(C) No. 6414/2010 2 the District Collector, on the premise that the elder son (defaulter) has no right over the movables. Going by provisions contained in the Revenue Recovery Act any claim made in this regard need be adjudicated by the competent authority. Hence, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to have adjudication on Ext.P2 claim raised by the petitioner. 3. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement, in which it is pointed out that on earlier occasions the defaulter himself had filed more than one writ petition before this Court and he had failed to comply with the stipulations in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.36280 of 2009. Therefore the contentions now raised by the petitioner does not deserve consideration, is the argument. 4. As already observed, there is no impediment in proceeding under the Revenue Recovery Act against 1/6th share of the defaulter in the immovable property wherein the house is situated. It is only just and proper that before proceeding with further steps for attachment and sale of the movables, claim raised by the petitioner need be adjudicated. W.P.(C) No. 6414/2010 3 5. Hence, the petitioner is directed to produce a copy of Ext.P2 before the 2nd respondent, along with a copy of this judgment, within a period of ten days from today. On appearance of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent shall afford a personal hearing on the same day itself or on any day at the earliest to which the hearing will be posted. A decision on Ext.P2 shall be taken at the earliest thereafter, at any rate within one month from today. 6. Further proceedings against the movables situated in the house wherein the petitioner is residing shall be proceeding with only in accordance with the decision taken in this regard. Needless to say that any further steps for attachment and sale of the movables situated in the house of the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such decision is taken by the 2nd respondent as directed above. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.