IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6391 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.KARUNAKARAN, S/O.KUNHIKUNHU, MANGATTETHU HOUSE, ELIPPAKKULAM, VALLIKUNNAM, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THEDISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.6391 of 2009-T ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's case is that the petitioner and his wife are leading a retired life in House No.1/174 of the Vallikkunnam Grama Panchayat and that they have two sons and three daughters who are living separately. Ext.P1 is the notice issued for attachment of the movables. It is for recovery of an award amount of Rs.14,325/- with 12% interest which comes to Rs.49,403/-by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Mavelikkara. The case of the petitioner is that neither the petitioner nor his wife are defaulters. Petitioner has filed Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is a petition filed under Section 29 of the Revenue Recovery Act. It is stated in Ext.P3 that none of the movables are belonging to the defaulter. 2. For recovery of the amount due from the son of the petitioner, the property of the petitioner cannot be made liable. It is ordered that the movables of the WPC No.6391/2009 -2- petitioner cannot be proceeded against. If the movables belonging to the petitioner are proceeded against and attached, certainly as held in M.S.Khadija vs. Dy. Tahsildar (Revenue), Kottayam (1974 KLT SN 3) claim will lie. If the petitioner raises a claim over it no further steps will be taken in the matter unless the claim of the petitioner is considered and a decision taken thereon in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 treating it as a claim of the petitioner and take a decision on it in accordance with law before any further action is taken. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS