IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30263 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O.UNNIYALU, KAPPIL HOUSE, VELLIANCHERRY POST, MELATTOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE, COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE. 2. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), KOZHIKODE. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, FEROKE. 5. K.V.RASHEED, S/O.AVARANKUTTY HAJI, SWADESHI BUNGLOW, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 30263 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner is the owner in possession of 40.50 cents of property which contains a residential building, upon which he derived title by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. Petitioner is paying land tax with respect to the property. The petitioner had purchased the property from the 5th respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that the said property is now being proceeded against under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, for realization of amounts due from the 5th respondent under the orders of Controlling Authority under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 (District Labour Officer, Kozhikode), Exts.P4 & P5. A firm by name 'M/s. Swadeshi Tile Works' is the respondent in Exts.P4 & P5, and father of the 5th respondent was the proprietor of the firm. Contention of W.P.(C)No. 30263 of 2009 -2- the petitioner is that the property covered under Ext.P1 deed is not liable to be proceeded under the said revenue recovery proceedings, because the property in question is a self acquired property of the 5th respondent and the same has no connection with the assets of the firm. 2. When the petitioner came to know about the proceedings initiated for attachment and sale of the property, as evidenced from Ext.P6, he had submitted a claim before the 3rd respondent as evidenced from Ext.P7. It is noticed that as per Section 46 of the Revenue Recovery Act, any person objecting to an attachment of any immovable property or has got any interest in a property attached, for realization of public revenue due, is entitled to approach the authorised officer with a claim for releasing such attachment. As such, Ext.P7 is a petition which can be considered as one filed under the provisions of Section 46 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore the 3rd respondent is bound to consider such claim and to dispose of the same on merits. W.P.(C)No. 30263 of 2009 -3- 3. Under the above circumstances I am of the opinion that the petitioner can relegated to the 3rd respondent for an adjudication on Ext.P7 claim petition. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to adjudicate upon the claim submitted by the petitioner as evidenced from Ext.P7, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, 5th respondent and the defaulter firm. A final decision in this regard shall be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 5. The respondents are directed to keep in abeyance further steps for sale of the immovable property till a final decision is taken as directed above. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/