IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24881 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HASSAN ABDURAHIMAN @ POOKOYA THANGAL THANGAL AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.HADDAD ATTAKOYA THANGAL KODAMBIYAKATH, VALAPPIL, HADDAD MAHAL ATHALOOR PO THAVANUR PONANI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.V.R.REKESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, PONNANI TALUK, PONNANI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 24881 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the father of the person who purchased the property concerned, against which coercive proceedings are being pursued now, invoking the remedy under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, is before this Court, seeking for immediate intervention, stating that his son is working abroad and that the petitioner has been instructed by the son to take of remedial measures including by approaching this Court, since the sale is scheduled on 12th of this month. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the son of the petitioner purchased the above property from one Rahim, as per Ext.P5 sale deed dated 16.10.2008. The flow of title is sought to be substantiated by producing copies of the prior deeds marked as Exts.P1 to P3. The learned counsel submits that the son of the petitioner was absolutely not aware any of the liabilities of the vendor as nothing was whatsoever was reflected in the 'encumbrance certificate' issued by the concerned registry and that the son of the petitioner was a bonafide purchaser. The defaulter by name Abdul Kareem, from whom the title came to the hands of the petitioner through different persons, had in fact purchased the property in the year 2000 as borne by Ext.P3. It is without 2 WP(C) No. 24881/2010 any regard to the above factual position that the property is being pursued against by the respondents for the alleged arrears to be satisfied by the said person by name Abdul Kareem. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the vendor of the property concerned is not a party to the present Writ Petition. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the liability of the defaulter was very much in existence, when the property was conveyed by effecting Ext.P3 sale deed, followed by other deeds as well and this being the position, the transaction is clearly hit by Section 44(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 4. Taking note of the facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being the father of the person who purchased the property as per Ext.P5, is ready and willing to clear the liability to the respondents/Revenue by effecting the entire dues; for which some breathing time is sought for, simultaneously pointing out that the petitioner’s son might be permitted to proceed against the others concerned by resorting to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 5. In the above circumstances, the outstanding liability of Rs.64,702/- with such other charges as shown in Ext.P8/P9 sale notice is permitted to be cleared by the petitioner by way of 'three' equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th of this 3 WP(C) No. 24881/2010 month to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, Ext.P8/P9 shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is also made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the liability as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in a lump sum. It is also made clear that, this will not stand in the way of the petitioner/his son to seek for appropriate remedy for realization of the same from the persons concerned by approaching the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc