IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9471 of 2009(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJAMMA, AGED 80, D/O.NEELAMMA, PUTHUPURAKKAL PADINJATTATHIL, MC-XI-979/562-4, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 5. PRAKASH DAMODARAN, S/O.DAMODARAN, PUTHUPURAKKAL PADINJATTATHIL, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM. 6. SUNANTHA PRAKASH, W/O.PRAKASH, KATTUNGAL VEEDU, THEKKANARYADU MURI, KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 9471 OF 2009 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this court with the following prayers. “ (i) To declare that the revenue recovery steps initiated by respondents 2 and 3 against the petitioner's movable property as illegal and void. (ii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 3rd and 4th respondents to consider the representation filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same within a time frame fixed by this court. “ 2. The 5th respondent is the petitioner's son and it is stated that he has also a residential building. The 6th respondent is the wife of the 5th respondent. The 6th respondent filed petition claiming maintenance and as per the order of maintenance for recovering the said amount recovery is launched against the property of the petitioner, it is the complaint of the petitioner. For WPC.9471/09 : 2 : recovering the amount due from the 5th respondent, certainly it is open to the recovery officer to proceed against the properties of the 5th respondent. If any other person's property is proceeded against, as per the decision in M.S.Khadija Vs. Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue), Kottayam [1974 KLT SN 3], it is open to the person concerned to raise a claim which must be investigated and order must be passed thereon in accordance with law before further action is taken. In such circumstances, writ petition is disposed of directing that if the movables of the petitioner are attached for recovering the amounts due from the 5th respondent, it will be open to the petitioner to raise a claim before the 2nd respondent. If there is attachment of the property belonging to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent will consider and take a decision on Ext.P2 in accordance with law before taking any further action in the matter. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE