IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35586 of 2008(J) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- KOCHA, W/O.THANKKAPPAN ASARI, PANCHAJANYAM, VADUKKATHARA, VENNAKKARA, NURANI P.O PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), PALAKKAD. 2. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD. 3. CHENTHAMARA.T., ALANKARATH HOUSE, KULASSEKARAPTHY, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. R1 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN R2 BY SHRI SAJI VARGHESE, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 35586 OF 2008 J -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the recovery steps being taken vide Ext.P2 demand notice under Section 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act which, according to her, is taken for recovery of the amounts due from her estranged son. The second prayer is to declare that the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 and scheduled in Ext.P3 are immune from attachment and recovery. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank besides the learned Government Pleader. No doubt, learned counsel for petitioner points out that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 dated 24.11.2008 before the fourth respondent District Collector. Ext.P2 is dated 17.4.2008. 3. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any attachment of the movables belonging to her for recovery of the amounts due from WPC.35586/08 J 2 her estranged son, she may file a claim petition as held by this Court in the decision in M.S. Khadija v. Dy. Tahsildar (Revenue), Kottayam (1974 KLT S.N.3 OP No.3073/72), in which even the Officer making the attachment will be duty bound to consider the same before any further action is taken. Likewise, if ultimately the immovable properties of the petitioner are illegally attached for recovery of the amounts due from her estranged son, the petitioner has a remedy of filing claim petition under Section 46 of the Revenue Recovery Act. No doubt, every effort must be made by the Recovery Officer to attach only the properties of the person liable. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: If the movables belonging to the petitioner are erroneously attached in the process for recovering any amount due from her estranged son without any legal justification, it will be open to the petitioner to file a claim petition before the Officer who attaches the movables. In such an event, the Officer will consider the claim of the petitioner with opportunity of hearing WPC.35586/08 J 3 to the petitioner and take a decision thereon in accordance with law, before any further action is taken. Likewise, if the immovable property of the petitioner is attached for recovery of the amounts due from her estranged son, petitioner may file a claim petition under Section 46 of the Revenue Recovery Act within the time provided therein, in which case, again it will be the duty of the Officer concerned to look into it and take a decision in accordance with law before proceeding in the matter further. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge