IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37545 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.KUMARAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, PAROKOTTIL HOUSE, KOTTAPPURAM,SREEKRISHNANPURAM, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KARIMPUZHA I VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 37545 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent. 2. Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner purchased ownership rights of M/s. Hotel Kandath International Private Limited. He could not carry the business and there were proceedings under the Building Tax Act. According to him Ext.P1 is passed by the first respondent against the fifth respondent. It is stated that Ext.P3 demand notice is issued against the petitioner under Section 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.14400 of 2007 and that was disposed of by Ext.P4. Ext.P4 reads as follows: “Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of building tax assessed in respect of a building, which is stated to be presently owned by fourth respondent. The assessment order produced by the petitioner is in the name of the fourth respondent, However, it is seen that one demand notice, Ext.P4 is issued in the name of the petitioner. Tahsildar has filed a counter affidavit stating that building is taken over by the petitioner with liability. I do not think the dispute between the petitioner and fourth respondent need be settled by WPC.37545/2008. 2 this Court because Section 19(2) of the Building Tax Act creates a charge on the property for the tax payable. It is not known what arrangement was made for payment of building when the property was transferred to the fourth respondent. Leaving open the fourth respondent's right to recover the amount from the petitioner, depending on terms of transfer of the building, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to sell the building, if assessed, and recover the arrears under Section 19 (2), if tax is not paid by the owner.” It is stated that recovery steps were dropped and recovery proceedings were initiated against the fifth respondent. Petitioner applied for withdrawal of revenue recovery demand as well as attachment made against the petitioner vide Ext.P5 addressed to the Tahsildar. According to the petitioner, in view of the financial constrains, he had entered into an agreement on 6.8.2008 with a condition to execute the sale deed within three months from the date of agreement. Ext.P6 is the copy of the agreement. Prayer in the writ petition is to command the first respondent to issue No Objection Certificate relating to the sale of the property if no revenue recovery proceedings are pending against the said property other than Ext.P2 demand requested in Ext.P5 representation. Learned counsel would reiterate that going by Ext.P4 judgment authorities are to proceed against the building for recovery of the amount due under the Building Tax Act. WPC.37545/2008. 3 3. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent would submit that the fifth respondent has no objection in the grant of No Objection Certificate Certificate to the petitioner. 4. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that there were requisitions from the Welfare Fund Inspector, Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board, Kozhikode and the Commercial Tax Officer, IVth Circle, Kozhikode. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the entire amount has been paid. In view of the urgency prayed for by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to expedite the matter and take a decision on Ext.P5 within a period of ten days form the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb