IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 26758 of 2008(I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JACOB K. MATHEW, S/O K.V. MATHEW, AGED 38 YEARS, KARITHADATHIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 3. SHAJU E.CHACKOCHAN,S/O CHACKOCHAN, EDAKUZHI PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM. 4. BENNY, S/O UTHUPPU, AGED 45 YEARS, KUDILIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR R3 BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.JIBU P THOMAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.26750/2008 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPYOF THE NOTICE DTD. 21/12/2007 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 28/01/2008. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 13/02/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11/04/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 21/04/2008 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DTD. NIL ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 26758 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The 3rd respondent was a defaulter in payment of Motor Vehicle tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act in respect of vehicle No. KL-7-AJ 8827 for the period from 01.04.2005 to 30.09.2007. The petitioner is the present owner of certain properties which originally belonged to the 3rd respondent, who sold it to the 4th respondent from whom the petitioner purchased the property. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent purchased the property from the 3rd respondent on 04.10.2005 and the petitioner purchased the property from the 4th respondent on 16.06.2007. For recovery of the arrears of motor vehicle tax due from the 3rd respondent, the Revenue Recovery Authorities issued Ext.P6 notice to the petitioner for sale of the property presently owned by him. The petitioner is challenging the same in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the property in the hands of the petitioner although it W.P.(C)No. 26758 of 2008 -2- originally belonged to the 3rd respondent-defaulter, is not liable to be proceeded against for arrears of motor vehicle tax due from the 3rd respondent. He argues that, there is no statutory charge on the properties belonging to the defaulter for motor vehicle tax and the charge is only on the vehicle. Under Rule 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act also sale effected by the defaulter in respect of immovable property after the service of the written demand on him only is not binding on the Government. According to the petitioner, the written demand under the Revenue Recovery Act was admittedly issued to the defaulter only on 22.11.2007, much after the purchase of the property by the 4th respondent from the 3rd respondent, as also by the petitioner from the 4th respondent. Therefore the property is not liable to be proceeded against is his contention. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “a) a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Exhibit P6 proceedings of the W.P.(C)No. 26758 of 2008 -3- 1st respondent holding that the same is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. b) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry as required by the petitioner in exhibit P5 before taking any steps against his property.” The facts are not disputed. The arrears of motor vehicle tax due from the 3rd respondent is for the period from 01.04.2005 to 30.09.2007. The 3rd respondent sold the subject properties on 04.10.2005 to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent sold the same to the petitioner on 16.06.2007. There is no allegation of fraud or collusion on the part of either the 3rd respondent or the 4th respondent or the petitioner. The Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act does not provide for any charge on the property of the defaulter in respect of motor vehicle tax, although it provides for a charge on the vehicle in question. Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act is also not applicable since the written demand was admittedly issued to the 3rd respondent only on 22.11.2007 after the purchase of the property by the 4th respondent from the W.P.(C)No. 26758 of 2008 -4- 3rd respondent and the petitioner from the 4th respondent on 16.06.2007. Therefore Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act is also not applicable to the property in question. Facts being so, the respondents 1 & 2 cannot proceed against the property now owned by the petitioner, which he purchased from the 4th respondent for valid consideration bonafide. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly Ext.P6 is quashed. It is declared that the property of the 3rd respondent which was purchased by the petitioner from the 4th respondent on 16.06.2007 is not liable to be proceeded against for recovery of motor vehicle tax from the 3rd respondent for the period 01.04.2005 to 30.09.2007. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/