IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 2459 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7985/2005 Dated 22/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. K.N.GIRISH, KAMALADALAM, KADAKKARAPPALLY, SHERTALLAI. 2. JAYALEKSHMI, WIFE OF SATHEESH, THOTTAZHATHU VEEDU, THURAVOOR, SHERTALLAI. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, SHERTALLAI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALLEPPEY. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. PADMINI AMMA, KATTIKKATTU VEEDU, KADAKKARAPPALLY, SHERTALLAI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.MEERA FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.2459 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 8th January, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy, Ag.C.J . Appellants/petitioners are challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of abkari dues from petitioners' mother who carried on abkari business during 1993-94 along with her brother. The defaulters contested the liability by filing O.P.No.2180 of 1995 and it was rejected. It is the contention of the petitioners that they obtained part of the properties of the defaulters by a decree of compromise and, therefore, that part of the property should not be proceeded with for recovering the dues. According to the learned single Judge, it is a collusive decree. In any event, compromise was effected when demands were pending and already notices were there. Under section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act, agreement entered into by the defaulter in respect of any immovable property after service of demand on him is not binding on the Government. Recovery proceedings are not affected by subsequent transfer. If petitioners are parties to the compromise decree, it is for them to file suit for damages. We fully agree with the learned single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE tks