IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 36070 of 2009(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- KANAKAMMA.T.A, W/O. LOHIDHAKSHAN, ATHIYARATH HOUSE, P.O. POOPATHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. MR.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE TAHSILDAR, KODUNGALLUR TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR. *ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED: R2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KMTWWF BOARD, PALARIVATTOM. (*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 4/02/2010 IN I.A.NO.1476/2010) R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV.MR.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.36070 of 2009-C ---------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the recovery proceedings being pursued by the respondents for realization of the amount stated as due in respect of the contribution to be paid under the Kerala Motors Transport Workers' Welfare Fund by the husband of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the property had come to the hands of the petitioner much earlier, with reference to the date of issuance of Ext.P2 and that the conveyance is not hit by Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the additional second respondent brought it to the notice of this Court that, despite the many an adjournment sought for by the petitioner assuring that the petitioner would implead her husband in the party array, no steps have been taken, which by itself shows the absence of bonafides in the matter. It is also stated that the liability now sought to be pursued is in respect of the year 1992, whereas the transfer of property was only on 17.11.1993 and this being the W.P(C) No.36070 of 2009-C 2 position, the contention raised by the petitioner does not hold any water at all. 3. The learned Government Pleader, with specific reference to the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent, submits that the actual facts and figures were considered by the first respondent and Ext.R1(a) proceedings were issued, whereby the application submitted by the petitioner to hold back the revenue recovery proceedings was rejected and the conveyance of the property itself was declared as void and contrary to the statutory prescription, in view of the pendency of the Revenue Recovery proceedings at the time of transfer. The learned Government Pleader also submits that, if the petitioner is aggrieved of the proceedings in any manner, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Commissioner for Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram as provided under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act itself. Instead of resorting to the alternate remedy as provided, the petitioner has simply rushed to this Court, which is not correct or sustainable; submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is considerable force in the submission made from the W.P(C) No.36070 of 2009-C 3 part of the respondents and the petitioner, if aggrieved in any manner, is to approach the appropriate authority as provided under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. In the said circumstances, no interference is warranted and the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.36070 of 2009-C 4