IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3561 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUHARA,W/O.LATE ABDUL KHADER, KUNNAKKATTIL HOUSE, PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2. THE THASILDAR, P.O.OTTAPALAM-679101 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY,P.O.OTTAPALAM-679101 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD PALAKKAD-678001 5. THE SECRETARY, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 6. SALIM S/O.LATE ABDULKHADER, KUNNAKKATTIL HOUSE,KANGIRAKADAVU, P.O.OTTAPALAM-679101 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.S.MANU FOR R4 & R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. *********************** W.P(C) No.3561 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Grievance of the petitioner is that coercive steps of recovery is now being pursued against the immovable property belonging to the petitioner which is covered under Ext.P1 deed. It is stated that the impugned steps of revenue recovery was initiated against the son of the petitioner, the 6th respondent herein, who had defaulted payment of amounts due to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. Contention of the petitioner is that the property covered under Ext.P1 is in her absolute ownership, possession and enjoyment and that she is remitting land tax as well as building tax with respect to the property as evidenced from Exts.P2 and P3. It is the further contention that the movables kept in the house situated in the above said property also belong to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the movable and immovable properties belonging to her are in no way liable to be proceeded against for realisation of amounts due from the 6th respondent. W.P(C) No.3561 of 2011 2 2. However, it is noticed that aggrieved by the alleged threat of recovery, the petitioner had submitted Exts.P4 and P5 before the 2nd respondent. Basically it seems that the petitioner is raising an objection, rather a claim, with respect to steps initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It is for the 2nd respondent, who is the competent authority, to consider such objection/claim and to adjudicate upon the same. Therefore I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P4 and P5 and to take an appropriate decision thereof. 3. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P4 and P5 objections submitted by the petitioner, if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The needful shall be done in this regard at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such decision is taken by the 2nd respondent as directed above, no recovery steps can be pursued against the movable and immovable properties belonging to the petitioner situated in the property covered under Ext.P1 deed. However, it W.P(C) No.3561 of 2011 3 is made clear that this will not prevent the authority from proceeding against any of the properties belonging to the defaulter, the 6th respondent. (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) rtr/