IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18813 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SAINABA ALIAS JAINABA,AGED 74 YEARS, W/O.LATE MOHAMMED,VALLUVAKKATTU HOUSE, TRURUTHUMMAL KARA,CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, ALUVA TALUK, ALUVA. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHENGAMANADU, ALUVA 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM(CIVIL STATION)KAKKANADU. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ......................................... WP (C) No. 18813 of 2010 ......................................... Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T ------------------------ The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the recovery proceedings being pursued by the respondents on the strength of Exhibit P3 and P4 notices issued in the name of the 'Son' of the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act, for realization of the amounts stated as due from the latter. Petitioner's case is that the property is belonging to the petitioner who is in no way liable or responsible for the liability of the 'Son' if any. 2. The 'Son' of the petitioner by name Sajad, was running a metal crusher and there was some liability from him towards alleged sales tax arrears, to be satisfied. Since the unit was not running on profit, the 'Son' of the 2 WP (C) No. 18813 of 2010 petitioner subsequently sold the same. On the basis of the requisition made by the concerned authority, Exhibit P3 and Exhibit P4 notices have been issued under the Revenue Recovery Act against the 'Son' of the petitioner . But the respondents are stated as trying to implement the said proceedings, as against the property of the petitioner, in spite of the fact that the defaulter has no property of his own. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is enjoying the property involved by virtue of Exhibit P1 and P2 title deeds with absolute ownership and the Son/defaulter has absolutely no right or interest over the same in any manner. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Considering the fact that, the petitioner has already exposed his grievances by filing Exhibit P5 representation 3 WP (C) No. 18813 of 2010 before the fourth respondent, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the said respondent to consider Exhibit P5 as sought for vide prayer No.3 in the Writ Petition. 6. Accordingly, the fourth respondent is directed to consider Exhibit P5 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till final orders are passed on above, no coercive steps shall be persuade against the petitioner under any circumstances. The writ petition is disposed of, as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. rkc