IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 490 of 2011(I) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. LEELAMMA THOMAS, W/O.THOMAS, GEO HOME, NORTH PIPE LINE, HMT COLONY P.O., COCHIN-683503. 2. ABDUL SALAM, S/O.ABDUL KADHAR, VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, KARIPPASSERY MUGAL, KANGARAPADY P.O., COCHIN-682021. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE-I, ERNAKULAM. KOCHI - 682 030. 3. MURALIDHARAN, M/S.UNIVERSAL TRADERS COMPANY, SASI MANDIR, ALAPPATT CROSS ROAD, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN-16. 4. SASINDRAN, M/S.UNIVERSAL TRADERS COMPANY, SASI MANDIR, ALAPPATT CROSS ROAD, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN-16. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.490 of 2011-I ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 order issued by the 1st respondent under Section 44(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioners claim to be bonafide purchasers of property covered under Ext.P1 sale deed. Contention of the petitioners in brief is as follows: The property was purchased from respondents 3 and 4. The petitioners had effected mutation in the revenue records and were enjoying the property since the date of purchase. The impugned proceedings in question was initiated against the property for realizing arrears of tax, due from respondents 3 and 4. When the petitioners came to know about such proceedings, a detailed objection was submitted to the 1st respondent, as evidenced from Ext.P2. 2. Considering the objections as above, Ext.P3 order was issued, observing that the default in question occurred W.P(C) No.490 of 2011-I 2 in the year 2003-04, whereas the transaction in favour of the petitioners was only on 3.7.2007. It is observed that the defaulters had acknowledged the arrears, and the transaction was intended only to defeat the recovery steps. Hence the property was ordered to be proceeded against under Section 44(2). 3. Contention of the petitioners is that they have purchased the property for valuable consideration in a bonafide manner. Further contention is that the proceedings against the property was initiated without taking any steps to recover the amount from respondents 3 and 4. It is specifically pointed out that, under the proviso to Section 44(3) of the Revenue Recovery Act, it is mandatory to issue notice to the defaulter before proceeding with attachment of any property invoking Section 44. It is the case of the petitioners that the defaulters are residing within Cochin city and that no notice was attempted to be served on them. It is also the case of the petitioners that the respondents 3 and 4 are having W.P(C) No.490 of 2011-I 3 immovable properties in their ownership and possession, which can be proceeded against for realizing the arrears. 4. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand points out that, going by Ext.P3, it is evident that notice was served on respondents 3 and 4. Per contra learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged notice was only affixed on the business place of respondents 3 and 4, which is not functioning at present. 5. Considering the rival contentions as above, I noticed that the petitioners have got an effective alternative remedy of revision against Ext.P3 order, as provided under Section 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioners will be at liberty to raise all contentions as stated above before the revisional authority, who is empowered to consider such contentions and to take appropriate decision on the factual aspects of the matter, based on the materials and records. I do not find any special reason to entertain this writ petition filed, bye- passing the statutory remedy. W.P(C) No.490 of 2011-I 4 6. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to approach the revisional authority, for which they seek for direction to keep in abeyance further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 for a reasonable period. 7. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to file revision petition before the appropriate authority against Ext.P3 order, as provided under Section 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 8. If any such revision is filed within the time stipulated as above, the appropriate revisional authority shall entertain such revision petition and dispose of the same on merits, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also to other parties if any concerned. 9. It will be open to the petitioners to seek W.P(C) No.490 of 2011-I 5 appropriate interim relief from the revisional authority, with respect to further proceedings, pending disposal of the revision petition. 10. In order to facilitate the petitioners to approach the revisional authority, all further steps pursuant to Ext.P3 order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three months from today. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab