IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32149 of 2010(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ AISHA KUNJU, AGED 75 YEARS, W/O.LATE SHAHUDEENKUNJU, KOTTOR VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AMBALAPUZHA VILLAGE AMBALAPUZHA, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK. 688561 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, AMBALAPUZHA. 688561 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPUZHA, P.O. ALAPPUZHA PIN. 688 001. 4. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, VANDANAM, ALAPPUZHA. 688 001, ALAPPUZHA PO. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32149 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are proceeding against the movable and immovable properties belonging to her, pursuant to the revenue recovery steps initiated against her son, Sri.Abdul Nizar. It is evident from Ext.P4 & P5 notices issued under the provisions of Section 34 and 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, that the son of the petitioner, Sri.Abdul Nizar, is the defaulter, who is in default in payment of amounts due to the 4th respondent under a loan transaction. Complaint of the petitioner is that the respondents 1 and 2 are threatening with coercive steps of attachment and sale of movables and immovables belonging to the petitioner for realisation of amounts to be recovered by virtue of Ext.P4 and P5. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the property in which she is now residing is owned by her and that she is the absolute owner of the movables situated within the residence contained in the said property. However, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 objections before the 3rd respondent disputing the action proposed against the properties belonging to her. 3. The question whether any of the property allegedly belonging to the petitioner is liable to be proceeded against for W.P.(C).32149/10 -2- realising amounts due under the revenue recovery steps, is a matter which need be adjudicated by the authorised officer under the provisions of the Act. 4. Under such circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation, for which the petitioner will make available a copy of the same to the 2nd respondent, along with this judgment. The dispute raised in Ext.P6 need be considered after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the 4th respondent and a decision thereof shall be taken by the 2nd respondent at the earliest possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. In order to facilitate disposal of Ext.P6 by the 2nd respondent, any steps of recovery taken or proposed against the movable or immovable properties upon which the petitioner claims right under Ext.P6, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two months from today. 6. It is made clear that this will not stand in the way of the respondents proceeding against any of the properties of the defaulter. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb