IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 34244 of 2009(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MOLAMMA VARGHESE, JOSE BHAVANAM ATTUVA, IRANIKUDY.P.O., PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL), SRI.A.R.DILEEP, SRI.GEORGE RAJU, SMT.SURYA SASI. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NOORANAD VILLAGE OFFICE, ALPPUZHA. 4. JOSE VARGHESE, ADINATTIL HOUSE MANAPPURAM. P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 5. BEENA KALARIKUNNEL HOUSE, THUMBAMON MURI, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, THEKKEKARA P.O., PANDALAM, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. R5 BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL), SMT.PRINCY XAVIER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 34244 of 2009(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.4184 DATED 03/11/1999. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 06/06/2001 FOR THE YEAR 2001-02. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITION IN M.C. NO.288/07 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a): COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C.288/07 DATED 26/03/2008. EXT.R5(b): COPY OF THE O.P.505/2009 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.34244 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent is the wife of the 4th respondent who is the son of the petitioner. The 5th respondent obtained an order for payment of maintenance by the 4th respondent from the Family Court. The petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that the revenue recovery authorities are proceeding against the petitioner's movable and immovable properties for recovery of the maintenance ordered to be paid by the 4th respondent to the 5th respondent. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) to declare that the movable or immovable property of the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded against for realising any amount due to the 4th respondent from the 3rd respondent in pursuance of Ext.P3 proceedings; ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to proceed against the assets of the petitioner under Revenue Recovery proceedings in compliance of any order passed in Ext.P3 proceedings for realising amount due from the 4th respondent; W.P.(C)No.34244 of 2009 -2- iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to desist from proceeding against the assets of the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act in execution of any order passed in pursuance of Ext.P3 petition against the 4th respondent.” The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit which reads thus: “2. It is humbly submitted that, a warrant for the recovery of Rs.4,450/- from Sri.Jose, S/o. Joy Varghese, Jose Bhavan, Nooranad was received from the Family Court, Thiruvalla and the same was forwarded to the Tahsildar, Mavelikkara for execution. The Tahsildar, Mavelikkara forwarded the warrant to the Village Officer, Nooranad with direction to realise the amount. 3. On conducting an enquiry through the Village Officer, Nooranad, it is known that the property comprised in Re-Survey No.168/3-1 of Nooranad Village and building upon is under the possession and ownership of the petitioner Smt. Molamma Varghese, who is the mother of the warrant party. The Village Officer, Nooranad or any other Revenue Official had not made any attempt to realise the warrant amount from the above property as it was in the possession and ownership of the petitioner, Smt. Molamma Varghese. Now, it is understood from the Village records that the 4th respondent warrant party and his brother jointly owns 2.03 ares of land in Nooranad Village in Re-survey No.168/3-2. It is being examined whether action can be taken against that property. 4. It is admitted that the village officials visited the said house and discussed about the warrant. It is admitted that the property mentioned in the petition belongs to the petitioner. No attempt was made by the revenue officials to attach the properties of the petitioner. The petitioner herself has admitted that no demand notice as per Revenue Recovery Act has been served on the petitioner. It may be noted that the demand was raised on account of a warrant case in the name of Sri. Jose and no action has been taken to recover the amount from the petitioner Smt. Molamma Varghese. It is humbly submitted that the Revenue Officials has not taken any attempt to attach the property of the petitioner. It is not true that there was any attempt to attach the movables of the petitioner. W.P.(C)No.34244 of 2009 -3- 5. It may kindly be noted that action was only taken for the recovery of the warrant amount from the 4th respondent, Jose, Jose Bhavan, Noornad. No revenue recovery notice was served on the petitioner for the recovery of the amount. The revenue officials has not taken any action to attach the movable/immovable property of the petitioner the averments raised by the petitioner is false and devoid of any merit.” The 5th respondent also submits that, that matter has been settled amicably between the parties. In the above circumstances, recording the averments of the 2nd respondent in his counter affidavit and the submission of the 5th respondent, this writ petition is closed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/