IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31319 of 2010(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.K.CHAMUNNI, M/S.C.K.C.B.AGENCIES, HOUSE NO.590(OLD NO.548), WARD NO.VIII, ANCHUMOORTHY P.O., VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKATESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRONIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(KELTRON), KELTRON HOUSE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 2. N.SWAMINATHAN, L5A, SWARNAMANGALA COLONY, ASHOKA NAGAR, CHENNAI-83. 3. MRS.THAMKAM AMMA, W/O.MURUKAN NAIR(LATE) PAROTHINKAL VEEDU, THEKKETHARA, MANGALAM, ANCHUMOORTHY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. DIVAKARAN, S/O.KARTYAYANI, KRISHNA PRIYA, OOTUPURA, KONDOTTY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV.SRI. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 31319 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging steps initiated under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, pursuant to demand notices issued under Ext.P4. The arrears sought to be recovered pertains to amounts due from the petitioner to the 1st respondent. 2. It is stated that the 1st respondent had already filed O.S. No.306 of 1994 before the Addl. Sub Court, Ernakulam for realization of the amount, which was decreed as per Ext.P1 judgment. It is stated that there is an order of attachment issued against the immovable property owned by the petitioner, in the execution proceedings being pursued before the civil court, at the behest of the first respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that by virtue of steps initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, the petitioner is being threatened with other coercive steps of W.P.(C) No. 31319/2010 2 arrest under section 65 of the Act. According to the petitioner, the revenue recovery authority can very well proceed against the property, which is under attachment, and take steps to realize the amount by sale of the said property. It is contended that the recovery steps now initiated during the pendency of the Execution Petition before the civil court, is unreasonable and unjustifiable. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, on the basis of instruction, submitted that the property, upon which the order of attachment was issued by the civil court, has already been transferred by the petitioner in a clandestine manner and the 1st respondent had already issued notices to the assignees. It is further stated that the 5th respondent had reported that, coercive steps were already initiated against the petitioner, but it is realized that apart from the property which is under attachment, there is no other asset, either movable or immovable available to be proceeded against. Since the said property is under attachment by the civil court, no steps were initiated W.P.(C) No. 31319/2010 3 by the 5th respondent under the revenue recovery proceedings. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, on the basis of the submissions made by learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate steps under the Execution Petition to proceed against the property, which is already under attachment. It is made clear that the 1st respondent can resort to further remedy of revenue recovery only if the amount due has not been fully realized by sale of the attached property. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.