IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38242 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIVEK VARKEY THOMAS, 5C, SKYLINE GATEWAY, PATHADIPALAM, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM-682032. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR-683542. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 38242 of 2010(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DTD.1.8.2009 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SECTION 7 REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DTD.18.10.2010 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE SECTION 33 REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DTD.18.10.2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.38242 of 2010-E ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Grievance voiced in this writ petition is that the 2nd respondent is raising threat for attachment of movables belonging to the petitioner situated in the apartment, wherein he is residing, near Pathadippalam at South Kalamassery. According to the petitioner his father Sri.M.V.Thomas is a defaulter with respect to payment of Building Tax, for which the 2nd respondent had issued Exts.P2 and P3 notices under Section 7 and Section 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Complaint of the petitioner is that, as part of recovery steps, the 2nd respondent came to the residential flat, wherein the petitioner is residing and threatened that the movable situated therein will be attached. 2. On instructions received from the 2nd respondent, learned Government Pleader submitted that the father of the petitioner is in arrears of payment of Building Tax to W.P(C) No.38242 of 2010-E 2 the tune of Rs.3,76,650/- and on enquiries it is revealed that the defaulter is now residing along with the petitioner in the flat at the address of the petitioner given in the writ petition. On receipt of such information revenue recovery requisition was forwarded to the Tahsildar, Kanayannor, because the defaulter is residing within the jurisdiction of that authority. It is further stated that the demand notices, Exts.P2 and P3, were not served to the petitioner from the office of the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent is not having jurisdiction in the area wherein the petitioner is residing. 3. Considering the above submissions, I am of the view that the writ petition is highly misconceived. It is made clear that if any coercive steps is initiated either by the 2nd respondent or by any other revenue recovery authority having jurisdiction over the area, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise objections contending that the movables situated in the house wherein he is residing does not belongs to the defaulter and that such movables are not W.P(C) No.38242 of 2010-E 3 liable to be proceeded against for arrears due from the father of the petitioner. Needless to say that if any such objection raised, the concerned authority will consider the same and take appropriate decision. 4. However, it is made clear that this will not preclude any authority concerned from proceeding against the defaulter and taking steps to realise the amounts from any of the properties of the defaulter. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab