IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30688 of 2009(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- KOMALA P.S.,W/O.SUBRAHMANIAN, AGED 58 YEARS,KODIKATTIL HOUSE, CHAMAKKALA POST,THRISSUR. BY ADVS. MR.DENIZEN KOMATH, MR.SHERRY J. THOMAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHZILDAR (R.R), KODUNGALLOOR TALUK OFFICE,THRISSUR. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHENDRAPPINNI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR,THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.30688 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are taking illegal steps for attachment and sale of immovable properties belonging to her, pursuant to the revenue recovery steps initiated against her husband for recovery of amounts due under a judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasargod, in C.C. No.202/2001. According to the petitioner she is living separated from her husband, who is the defaulter, and that the properties in question were assigned to her through Exts.P1 & P2 sales deeds executed as early as in the year 1991-92. Contention is that the property covered under Exts.P1 & P2 are not liable to be proceeded against for recovery of amounts defaulted by her husband. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the basis of instructions received from the W.P.(C)No.30688 of 2009 -2- 2nd respondent, submitted that a claim petition filed in this regard as evidenced from Ext.P4, was already considered and disposed of, in compliance with the directions in Ext.P5 judgment, finding that the transfer of property in favour of the petitioner was made prior to the date when the amount sought to be recovered has fallen due, and therefore the said property is not liable to be proceeded against. Further it is stated that the matter has already been intimated to the Magistrate court concerned. 3. The above submission is recorded and the writ petition is accordingly closed, since grievance of the petitioner stands already redressed. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/