IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 27320 of 2007(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATTARA PATHUMMA, D/O.MATTARA KORANGATTIL AHAMMED KUTTY, KUTTOOR NORTH, A.R.NAGAR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, A.R.NAGAR, MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. MATTARA ABDULLAKUTTY , S/O.MATTARA KORANGATTU AHAMMEDKUTTY, KUTTOOR NORTH, A.R.NAGAR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY G.P. SRI. V. TEKCHAND FOR R1 AND R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 2-4-2009 , THE COURT ON 02/04/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27320 OF 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P4(a) proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 for realization of some dues stated as payable by the third respondent (brother of the petitioner) to his wife-who reportedly had filed some proceedings before the Family Court, Kozhikkode against the third respondent. 2. The third respondent is the brother of the petitioner, from whom she purchased the concerned property as per Ext.P1 assignment deed. Subsequently, spending lakhs of rupees, she effected reconstruction of the building situated thereon and is residing in the said building with her family, enjoying the properties with absolute title and exclusive possession as evident from Exts.P2 and P3 proceedings regarding the payment of basic tax to the A.R. Nagar Village. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a fine morning, she was asked by the second respondent to vacate the premises and surrender the properties in W.P.(C) No.27320 of 2007 2 furtherance to the steps being pursued by the respondents 1 and 2 towards realisation of the outstanding dues from the third respondent, as if the properties belonged to the said respondent. Even though the petitioner substantiated the position with reference to the relevant records, respondents 1 and 2 were not prepared to accept the same and threatened of dire consequences, which made the petitioner to approach this court challenging the impugned proceedings. 4. Obviously Ext.P4 and P4(a) proceedings initiated by the concerned respondents are against the third respondent and his properties. It is also further discernible from Ext.P4(a) that the alleged liability is in respect of the orders passed by the Family Court, Malappuram and the proceedings have been numbered as No.D6/4582/07 causing the necessary notice to be issued on 14.06.2007. But the property concerned herein which originally belonged to the third respondent was purchased by the petitioner for valuable sale consideration, as per Ext.P1 assignment deed bearing No.187/06 dated 17.01.2006. This clearly shows that the transfer of property was not effected by the third respondent to any of the near W.P.(C) No.27320 of 2007 3 relatives like the petitioner during the pendency of the revenue recovery proceedings, so as to have attracted the adverse consequences as contemplated under Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act. As such, it is hereby declared that there is absolutely no justification on the part of respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against Ext.P1 property belonging to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the said respondents will be at liberty to proceed against any properties of the third respondent for realisation of the amounts due from him in respect of the requisition issued in this regard. The writ petition is allowed accordingly; no costs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE pac