IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1162 of 2011(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.M.SKARIA, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.CHERIA,PERUMPALLIKUNEL HOUSE, RAMAMANGALAM KARA,...DO VILLAGE,MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.PAULOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLORKUNNAM, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK 686 661. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD 678 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 1162 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by the revenue recovery steps threatened against movable and immovable properties belonging to him, on the basis of Ext.P1 series notices issued under sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The amount sought to be realised pertains to arrears due from the petitioner's son Sri. Sabu under an award passed by MACT, Palakkad, in OP (MV).No.889/2003. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of Ext.P1 notice, the respondents 1 and 2 are attempting to attach the household articles situated in the residence of the petitioner which is situated in a property owned by him. Exts.P2 and P3 title deed and tax receipt were produced in order to show that the property is in absolute ownership and possession of the petitioner. Contention of the petitioner is that the property belonging to the petitioner is in no way liable to be proceeded against for realising the amount due from his son. 2. Considering the facts, it is revealed that, basically the WP(C).1162/2011 2 dispute is as to whether any of the properties belonging to the petitioner is liable to be proceeded against on the basis of Ext.P1 series notices. The petitioner has not approached any of the respondents raising any such objections. Going by the provisions contained in section 34(2), as well as other provisions in the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the petitioner has got remedy to object any such apprehended action before the 2nd respondent. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner can be relegated to that authority for redressing grievances if any. 3. Under the above circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit objections before the 2nd respondent regarding the apprehended actions. If any such objection is received from the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision, if necessary after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 4. Needless to say that no steps of recovery shall be proceeded against any of the properties of the petitioner till such decision is taken. 5. However, it is made clear that this will not preclude WP(C).1162/2011 3 the respondents from proceeding against properties if any belonging to the defaulter son. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/