IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5007 of 2011(A) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. SELVAKUMAR,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MUTHAYYA RAJASABAI,NAGATHENAYIL,ASRAMAM DESOM, KOLLAM VILLAGE,KOLLAM-691002. 2. ROOPKUMAR,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MUTHAYYA RAJASABAI, NAGATHENAYIL,ASRAMAM DESOM,KOLLAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691002. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM-691001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,(REVENUE RECOVERY), KOLLAM-6891001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WPC. NO.5007/2011 APPENDIX RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1075/1998 OF KOLLAM S.R.O. P2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. P3: COPY OF THE POSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE OFFICER. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05/01/2011. P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 01/02/2011 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5007 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioners claim to be the absolute owners in possession of 10.79 Ares of property comprised in Re-survey No.23/2 Kollam East village, upon which they have derived title by virtue of Ext.P1 Deed. Grievance of the petitioner is that through Ext.P4 notice the second respondent had proclaimed sale of the said property for realising amounts due from Smt.Ponmalar Roopkumar and others who are defaulters in payment of sales tax. It is conceded that Smt.Ponmalar Roopkumar is the wife of the second petitioner. But contention is that the property absolutely belong to the petitioners and that any of the defaulters have no interest of whatsoever nature, in the property in question. 2. On coming to know about the notice proclaiming sale of the property, the petitioner approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P5 objection. But without considering such objection, the respondents are proceeding 2 W.P.(C).No.5007 of 2011 with steps for sale of the property, which is scheduled to be held on 23.2.2011 (tomorrow). 3. From the nature of the contentions it seems that, the basic dispute is as to whether the property now proceeded against, covered under Exts.P1 to P3, is liable to be sold or not, for recovering the amount in question. It is for the authority concerned, who is the second respondent herein, to consider the objections and to take appropriate decisions. It is noticed that Ext.P5 objection was filed before the first respondent. The petitioner will furnish a copy of Ext.P5 to the second respondent along with a copy of this judgment. The second respondent is directed to consider the objection raised under Ext.P5 and to adjudicate the same and to arrive at a conclusion, if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 4. Till such time a decision is taken on the basis of Ext.P5 objection, the steps for sale of the property now proclaimed under Ext.P4 shall be deferred. However, a 3 W.P.(C).No.5007 of 2011 decision in this regard shall be taken by the second respondent at the earliest possible at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. It is made clear that the above direction will not stand in the way of the respondents proceedings against any of the properties belonging to the defaulters and from taking any effective steps for realising the amount from such properties. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge