IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24387 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.DIVINE TRUST, REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE FR.GEORGE PANAKAL, AGED 59, S/O.PANAKAL JOSEPH, MURINGOOR, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, SHOLAYAR. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MANNARKAD TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SHOLAYAR VILLAGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P.K. BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) NO. 24387 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 28 th August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is that the property belonging to the petitioner, which was purchased in the year 2007 by virtue of Ext. P2 document is sought to be proceeded against, invoking the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act vide Ext. P4 notice, obviously issued in the name of one Smt. Francis Margarat Fernandaz (late). 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the property in question and that no amount is due from the petitioner to the Government or any other institutions under any 'Head' and that absolutely no notice whatsoever has been served upon the petitioner at any point of time in connection with the issue involved in Ext.P4. Above all, as revealed from the opening sentence of Ext. P4, the defaulter named therein is 'no more'. As such, Ext. P4 notice cannot be W.P.(C) NO. 24387 OF 2009 2 held as legally valid and enforceable . 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits, on instructions, that the property was purchased from the original owner after the conveyances effected through different hands at different points of time and that since the original owner was a defaulter to the Government and the property was transferred without clearing the liability under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, the conveyance effected originally was hit by the provisions under Section 44(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act. This being the position, the respondents are very much entitled to proceed against the property in question , submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. The undisputed fact remains that Ext.P4 notice has been issued in the name of a person who is 'no more' and further that there is no case for the respondents that any notice or proceeding has been issued in the name of the petitioner in respect of the cause of action. Unless and until the proceedings are finalised, adopting a procedure known to law, particularly as envisaged under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the W.P.(C) NO. 24387 OF 2009 3 respondents cannot be permitted to proceed with further steps on the basis of Ext.P4. 5. In the said circumstances, it is declared that Ext.P4 notice issued in the name of the 'deceased' Francis Margarat Fernandaz is not enforceable against the petitioner or his property covered by Ext. P2. However, it is made clear that the respondents are free to pursue appropriate proceedings against the petitioner or Ext.P2 property, in accordance with law, if the actual conveyance is contrary to the statutory prescriptions, particularly under Section 44(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk