IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20520 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MARIYAM OUSEPH, W/O.OUSEPH, KUZHUPPILLIL HOUSE, SOUTH VELLARAPPALLY P.O., THEKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHOVVARA-THEKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, ALWAYE. 4. PAULOSE, KUZHUPPILLIL HOUSE, SOUTH VELLARAPPALLY P.O. THEKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE. 5. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, PERUMPAVOOR-683 542. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 20520 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is before this Court challenging the steps and course pursued by the respondents particularly, the Revenue Authorities against him and his properties, by way of Ext.P3 notice issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, in the name of the 'son' of the petitioner, who is the 4th respondent in this Writ Petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is the owner of 13 cents of land, in respect of which the basic tax is being paid by none other than the petitioner, as borne by Ext.P1. The 4th respondent, who is the son of the petitioner, while driving a goods autorikshaw on 01.04.1997 got involved in an accident, whereby the person was travelling in the vehicle, sharing the seat of the driver sustained some injuries, which led to OP(MV) 1294/1998 preferred before the MACT, Perumbavoor; wherein Ext.P2 Award has been passed, whereby the Insurance Company has been permitted to recover the due amount from the petitioner, after satisfaction of the liability to the claimant, by virtue of violation of the statutory/policy condition. It is pursuant to Ext.P2 Award that, Ext.P3 notice has been issued by the Revenue Authorities against the 4th respondent/son of the petitioner. In any view of the matter, since the materials on record reveals 2 WP(C) No.20520/2010 that Ext.P3 notice has been issued in the name of the 4th respondent/son of the petitioner and since the petitioner is not a party or defaulter before the Tribunal in any manner, as borne by Ext.P2 Award, the matter is liable to be considered by the 2nd respondent before whom the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 representation explaining the factual position in detail. Considering the limited nature of the relief proposed to be given, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the 4th or 5th respondents. 3. In the above circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 and pass appropriate orders there on. The petitioner shall produce a true copy of the title deed belonging to the petitioner in respect of property covered by Ext.P1 before the 2nd respondent, along with a copy of this judgment and a copy of Ext.P4 representation within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Final orders as above shall be passed after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month thereafter. It is made clear that, Ext.P3 notice issued by the 2nd respondent in the name of the 4th respondent/defaulter shall not be implemented against the petitioner or the properties of the petitioner till the final orders are passed on Ext.P4 representation as above. This will not bar the way of the respondents in proceeding against the defaulter or his properties, if any. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc