IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 30392 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.M.SHAREEFA, D/O ABU, P.M.HOUSE, BLOCK ROAD, CHEMMAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM. 3. P.N.ABDUL MAJEED, S/O ABDU, P.M.HOUSE, BLOCK ROAD, CHEMMAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 30392/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE. P2. COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.3526 OF 2005. P3. COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE. P3A. COPY OF THE -DO- P4. COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE R1. P5. COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER IN RP (FC) NO.368/2008 DTD.20.1.2009. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.30392 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T 8 cents of land and the house situated therein comprised in Resurvey No.375/5 of Thirurangadi village belonged to the father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner died in 2001, leaving behind his wife, three sons and four daughters. The 3rd respondent is one of the sons, who had 14/80 undivided share in the said property as per the Muslim Personal Law. According to the petitioner, the share of the 3rd respondent was released to the petitioner in 2005 by a registered release deed. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has no right in the property presently. The wife of the 3rd respondent filed a petition before the Family Court, Kozhikkode, seeking maintenance, which Family Court had awarded maintenance by an ex parte order. The property now owned by the petitioner and others is being proceeded against in revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the maintenance amount payable by the 3rd respondent to his wife as per the order of the Family Court. The petitioner is challenging the same on the ground that the 3rd respondent has no right in the property and that even if he had any right, the right is only to the extent of 14/80 undivided share and for that share, the entire property cannot be proceeded against. W.P.C.30392/07 2 2. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the release of the share of the 3rd respondent in favour of the petitioner is pending the recovery proceedings and, therefore, the petitioner cannot take a stand that the property cannot be proceeded against for recovery of the amounts. 3. However, the petitioner has now produced, along with I.A. No.9383/2009, Ext.P6 order of this Court, in R.P.F.C. No.368/2008 dated 20.1.2009, wherein this Court has set aside the ex parte order granting maintenance on certain conditions. The petitioner would submit that the conditions in Ext.P6 order of this Court have already been complied with. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the revenue recovery proceedings can no longer be continued. 4. After hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in view of Ext.P6 order, revenue recovery proceedings cannot be proceeded with if the conditions therein have been complied with. Accordingly, I direct that revenue recovery proceedings shall not be proceeded with, if the 3rd respondent has complied with the directions in Ext.P6 order. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge W.P.C.30392/07 3