IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2833 of 2011(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RANJITH V,S/O.N.VELAPPAN,AGED 28 YEARS, MATT KAD HOUSE,KUZHALMANNAM P.O.,PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.P.R. AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD-678 001 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678 541 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,(RR) TALUK OFFICE,ALATHUR,PALAKKAD-678 541 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUZHALMANNAM VILLAGE, ALATHUR, PALAKKD-678 541 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD-678 541 R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN R5 BY ADV.SRI. A.S.P.KURUP, SC FOR UBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2833 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is challenging the revenue recovery steps initiated on the basis of Ext.P1 and P2 notices, which are issued in the name of the defaulter (sister of the petitioner), because coercive steps are threatened for attachment and sale of movable and immovable properties belonging to the petitioner. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that his sister, who is the defaulter, was not in good terms, and that she had not left any property in the residential building wherein the petitioner is residing. It is the contention that the immovable property wherein the petitioner is residing absolutely belongs to him and that he is the owner of all the movables situated therein. 3. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted an objection to the 1st respondent against the actions W.P.(C).2833/11 -2- threatened and it is pending consideration and disposal. Grievance of the petitioner is that without taking note of such objections now coercive steps are being pursued. 4. Standing counsel for 5th respondent Bank on the other hand contended that, the immovable property wherein the petitioner is residing belongs to the deceased father of the petitioner, who was a guarantor with respect to the loan transaction and therefore the said property is liable to be proceeded against, for realising the amounts due in the loan account. 5. It is noticed that with respect to the revenue recovery steps no specific notice was issued either in the name of the deceased father who is alleged to be the guarantor, or in the name of his legal heirs including the petitioner. However, claim/objection of the petitioner seems to be that the property in the residential house of the petitioner as well as the immovable property wherein such building is situated are not liable to be proceeded against for realising the amounts covered under Ext.P1 and P2. Basically it is a dispute which need be adjudicated under W.P.(C).2833/11 -3- the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, as contemplated under Section 34(2) and 46 of the said Act. Therefore I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the competent authority to consider and take a decision on Ext.P3. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation, a copy of which will be made available to him, if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. Till such time a decision is taken on the basis of the adjudication as directed above, further steps of recovery against the movables and immovables wherein the petitioner is residing, shall be kept in abeyance. 8. However, it is made clear that this will not preclude the authorities from proceeding against person and properties of the defaulter. W.P.(C).2833/11 -4- 9. It is made clear that if it is found that the property belongs to the deceased father and that the father was a guarantor to the loan transaction, it will be left open to the authority to take appropriate steps after complying due formalities to proceed against such properties, after issuing proper notice to the legal heirs. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb True copy P.A to Judge