IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / \0TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7616 of 2009(V) --------------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------- S.B.SHOBANAKUMARY,AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.SATHEESH,SUKUMARA MANDIRAM,ALAMKODE MURI PANGAPPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,SREEKARIYAM BRANCH,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (R.R.) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANGAPPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. BINDU, AGED 44 YEARS,D/O.PADMAVATHY AMMA KESAVA VILASOM, ALAMKODE MURI, PANGAPPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.L. SAJEEV, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7616 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner states that the 4th respondent had property on the western side of her property. According to the petitioner, Exhibit P1 is her title deed and Exhibit P3 is the title deed of the 4th respondent. It is stated that the 4th respondent mortgaged her property to the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and that on which when default was committed, recovery proceedings were initiated. 2. It is stated that in pursuance to revenue recovery proceedings, the property of the 4th respondent was taken over and during the course of such taken over, about 3 cents of petitioner's property also has been taken over. It is with that grievance this writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct respondents 1 to 3 to not to proceed against the petitioner's property. 3. As already noticed, the grievance of the petitioner is to the extent that in the course of revenue recovery proceedings against the property of the 4th respondent, part of her property W.P.(C) No. 7616/ 2009 2 also has been taken over. If the property mortgaged is one coved by Exhibit P3 title deed of the 4th respondent, I have no reason to think that respondents would have taken over any portion of the property in excess of what is covered by Exhibit P3. This dispute can be resolved only by a Civil court and therefore leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the civil court, I close this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm