IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21801 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SOMAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, S.R.NIVAS, KANDASSERL HOUSE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, KAREELAKUNLANGARA P.O., ALLEPPY DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ R.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KTDFC BUILDING, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY) HARIPPAD, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KIREEKKAD VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. 5. I.N. RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, 7C 48/603, E-71, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, KUNJALUMOODU, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002. R1, R3 & R4 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL R2 BY SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 21801 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Revenue recovery steps initiated pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 notices, issued under section 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act respectively, is under challenge in this writ petition. Consequent to default committed in repayment of loan availed by the petitioner from the 2nd respondent, recovery steps were initiated. It is revealed that an amount of Rs.19,86,826/- along with interest due from 20.12.2008 is demanded through Exts.P3 and P4 notices. According to the petitioner, the loan was availed by the 5th respondent by mortgaging property belonging to the petitioner. However, it is conceded that the property was transferred by the petitioner through Ext.P1 sale deed. But, contention of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent in turn had executed Ext.P2 agreement through which the property was promised to be reconveyed. According to the petitioner, when the coercive steps of recovery were initiated, he had submitted Ext.P6 request before the 2nd respondent, expressing willingness WP(C) 21801/2010 2 to repay the balance amount subject to condition of the 2nd respondent releasing the mortgage and assigning the property in favour of the petitioner. 2. Considering the factual aspects as stated above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is a total stranger as far as the loan transaction is concerned. The 2nd respondent had accepted the mortgage since the title of the property stands in the name of the 5th respondent. Any right alleged to have been created on the basis of Ext.P2 agreement, will not bind on the 2nd respondent. Under such circumstances the request now made by the petitioner for assignment of the property in favour of him, by the 2nd respondent could not be considered. It is stated by the Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent that, considering Ext.P6, a reply has already been given to the petitioner declining his request for assignment of the property in favour of him. 3. It is noticed that the petitioner had failed to comply with a condition stipulated by this court while granting interim stay. There is no representation for the petitioner when the matter was taken up on today. Under the above mentioned WP(C) 21801/2010 3 circumstances I find no merit in the contention raised and no reason to entertain this writ petition any further. 4. Therefore the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) 21801/2010 4