IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 7870 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SULEKHA, D/O.SEETHAMMA, KOIPPURATHU VEEDU, AAYIRAMTHENGU, KUTTIKKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR (RR), KOLLAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. 4. SUGATHAN, S/O.RAJAN, INDIRALAYAM, AYIROOR, VARKALA. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.7870 of 2010-G ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The fourth respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner, had defaulted payment of sales tax due to the Government. Grievance of the petitioner is that the property jointly held by the petitioner along with other siblings are now being proceeded against under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, for realising amounts due from the fourth respondent. It is stated that a partition suit filed by the petitioner along with her sisters against the fourth respondent and another brother had already been decreed by the Munsiffs Court, Paravoor and a petition for passing final decree is pending before that Court. Contention of the petitioner is that the property which is now sought to be proceeded against is remaining in the joint ownership of the plaintiffs and defendants in the suit and the fourth respondent is having only 1/6th undivided share in the property. W.P(C) No.7870 of 2010-G 2 2. In Ext.P3 notice, through which the sale was proclaimed, the second respondent had described the property offered for sale as 1/6th share belonging to the fourth respondent defaulter, having road frontage. According to the petitioner the 1/6th share remains undivided and it could not be described that 1/6th share is having road frontage. The petitioner seeks direction to keep the recovery steps in abeyance till final decree is passed in the partition suit and the share of the defaulter is demarcated by meats and bounds. 3. I am of the opinion that recovery steps need not be kept pending till passing of final decree in the suit. On the other hand going by the provisions contained in the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the authorities are at liberty to proceed with steps for sale of 1/6th undivided share of the defaulter in the property. I find merit in the contentions of the petitioner to effect that since 1/6th share remains undivided, description of the property as having road frontage could not be mentioned in the proclamation of sale. W.P(C) No.7870 of 2010-G 3 However, learned Government Pleader submitted that sale was not materialised pursuant to Ext.P3 notice. 4. Hence the writ petition is disposed of making it clear that, if any further steps for sale of the property in question is proceeded with, such steps shall be restricted only to the extent of 1/6th undivided share in the property held by the fourth respondent defaulter. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab