IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28255 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AUGUSTINE, S/O.DEVASSY, PANAKKAL HOUSE, BOAT JETTY ROAD, VADUTHALA, KOCHI-23. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-30. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERANELLUR. KOCHI - 34. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 28255 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Grievance of the petitioner is that the revenue recovery authorities are now proceeding against movable properties situated in the house wherein he is residing, for recovering amounts due from his son, who is now employed at Qatar. According to the petitioner the defaulter son has no rights on the movables situated in the house wherein the petitioner is residing. It is evident that the revenue recovery steps were initiated pursuant to default committed by the son in payment of Motor Vehicle Tax due with respect to a vehicle bearing No. KL 07 AL 9148. 2. It is contended that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property wherein the house is situated and the defaulter son has no manner of rights whatsoever nature upon the property. Same is the 2 WP(C) No. 28255/2010 contention with respect to the movables situated in the house situated in the said property. Hence it is contended that those movables are not liable to be proceeded for realizing amounts due from the son. 3. It is noticed that the petitioner had submitted a claim in this regard, before the second respondent as evidenced from Ext.P3. Going by provisions contained in Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, if any such claim is submitted it is for the respondents to adjudicate upon the same and to arrive at a decision as to whether the properties in question are liable to be proceeded against or not. Under such circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition directing consideration of Ext.P3 by the second respondent. 4. The second respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 petition after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 3 WP(C) No. 28255/2010 5. It is made clear that till a decision is taken by the second respondent as directed above, no further steps for attachment and sale of movables situated at the house wherein the petitioner is residing shall not proceeded against. It is made clear that the respondent will be at liberty to proceed with all steps permissible under law against person and property of the defaulted son. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc