IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15500 of 2004(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PRASAD.I., S/O. K.K.ITTICHERIYA, KALAPPILA HOUSE, IDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.REJI MATHEW KAVALAYIL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 2. THAHASILDAR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, KOLLAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 5. P.MADHU S/O. PRABHAKARAN, SINU MANDIRAM EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 6. SULABHAKUMARY W/O. P.MADHU, SINU MANDIRAM, EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL, SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR R3 R1,2 & 4 BY G.P. SRI. SABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 30.9.2002 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM REGISTRY EXECUTED BY THE 5TH AND 6TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.3.2004 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KSFE, KOLLAM. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 17.3.2004 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.3.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.4.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THE 4TH RESPONDENT TOTHE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 15500 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge is against recovery proceedings initiated for recovery of arrears of motor transport workers welfare fund due from respondents 5 and 6 against property purchased by the petitioner from the defaulters. If property was sold after revenue recovery notice was received by respondents 5 and 6 then of course transfer is hit by section 44 of the RR Act. Similarly if there is charge on the property of the defaulters under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, then the sale of the property to the petitioner will be subject to such charge and recovery can be continued. These are matters which should be gone into by the second respondent as provided under Section 46 of the RR Act. During the pendency of the O.P. this Court directed respondents 2 and 4 to proceed for recovery against defaulters and if amount is recovered, then there is no scope for continuing proceedings against the property purchased by the petitioner from the defaulters. W.P. is accordingly disposed of directing respondents 2 and 4 to 2 proceed for recovery against the property of respondents 5 and 6 and if respondents 5 and 6 do not discharge liability or if recovery could not be effected from their other property, then second respondent will consider whether the property sold to the petitioners was subject to charge by virtue of operation of the Act or by Section 44 as stated above. In that event, the property purchased by the petitioner should be proceeded against only if such property is subject to charge at the time of sale to the petitioner. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3