IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27516 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- NEELAVATHI, W/O. H. RAMA, HOUSE NO. KMC 11-483, HOSDURG VILLAGE, KANHANGAD.P.O, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KANNUR.P.O. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 3. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KASARAGOD.P.O. R1 & R3 BY ADV. SRI. K. JAJU BABU. R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 27516 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the owner of the property covered by Ext.P1. The property is transferred to her by her husband by way of Ext.P1 settlement deed. Petitioner's husband and son started a small scale unit with financial assistance from Kerala Financial Corporation. The loan was not repaid. The factory was taken over by KFC and sold. Petitioner's husband received demand notices requiring him to meet the demand vide Exts.P6 and P7. Now it is stated that the first respondent came to the petitioner's residence on 27.8.2008 and threatened to attach and remove the movables. It is the case of the petitioner that the property belongs to her absolutely and the movables are also exclusively belonging to the petitioner and neither the landed property or the movables have been given as security to KFC. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.V.G. Arun, learned Standing Counsel, Sri. K.Jaju Babu and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Sri.K.Jaju Babu points out that it is open to the petitioner to approach the authority under Section 46 of the Revenue Recovery Act, if there is an attachment. He also relied on the decision of a learned Single WPC. 27516/2008. 2 Judge reported in Kuriakose v. District Collector (1998(2) K.L.J. 212). 4. I would think that at at present there is only a notice issued under Section 34 of the Act. Of course petitioner has not filed any objection as such. Certainly, it is open to the petitioner, if she is so advised, to object to any attachment of the property, which she claims under Ext.P1 or otherwise. Accordingly without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the appropriate remedy available to her under the Revenue Recovery Act, the writ petition is disposed of. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb