IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 15001 of 2002(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ TULASI, W/O.VIJAYAN, CHEKKELITHARA HOUSE, CHERNELLORE,ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GHE GOVERNMENT. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND, PALARIVATTOM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), KANAYANNAUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R2 R1R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 25301 OF 2002 IN OP 15001 OF 2002 DISMISSED 11.1.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER, INAM SETTLEMENT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DATED 10.8.2001 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO. 465/2001 DATED 10.8.2001 ISSUED BY THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER, INAM SETTLEMENT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO. 1809/1992 DATED 25.4.92 OF ERNAKULAM SUB REGISTRY. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 8.8.2001 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE CHERANELLOORE GRAMA PANCHAYAT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX FOR THE HOUSE DATED 16.1.2002 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT, DATED 20.4.2002 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 15001 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of motor transport workers welfare fund contribution demanded from registered owner and petitioner's husband who was operating owner. Since recovery is not against the petitioner, petitioner cannot have any grievance. I make it clear that recovery should be made by attachment and sale of movable and immovable properties of the defaulters and not the property of the petitioner. I do not think any purpose will be served by attaching the movables in the petitioner's house, because the amount involved is Rs. 71,000/- in 2002 and with interest accretion it would have gone over Rs. 1 lakh. In the circumstances, I direct respondents 3 and 4 to proceed against the immovable property, vehicle etc., of the defaulters. Petitioner is directed to produce title deeds before the third respondent to consider whether petitioner's claim for exclusion of such property from attachment and sale. If the property does not belong to the defaulter or 2 if the property is not transferred by the defaulter, then such property should be excluded from recovery. However, if defaulter has any right in the property, then third respondent will proceed for recovery against such property. O.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3