IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 10896 of 2006(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THOMAS, S/O. VARKEY, CHANGANAMADATHIL, P.O. PULPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, AMBALAVAYAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. N.P. POULOSE, NELLATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, PADICHIRA, WAYANAD DISTRICT R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.P.A. RAZIYA R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMG W.P (C) No.10896/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED No.765/95 EXECUTED THROUGH COURT. EXT.P2 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21-10-2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 29-10-2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-01-2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 02-02-2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-02-2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04-03-2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE No.W.4-6200/07 DATED 14-01-2009 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, WYNAD. EXT.R2(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXCISE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, WYNAD No. W.4-6200/2007 DATED 27-07-2010. EXT.R2(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PULPALLY DATED 26-07-2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE AMG S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.10896 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner purchased a property by Ext.P1 sale deed executed in court sale conducted by the Sub Judge, Sulthan Bathery in O.S.No.148/94. Now the 1st respondent has attached that property for recovery of dues under the Abkari Act from the 2nd respondent, who was the original owner of the property. Orders have been passed under Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Exts-P4, and P7 orders passed by the 1st respondent. b) Declare that the 1st respondent does not have any power or authority under section 44(2) and 44(3) of the Revenue Recovey Act to invalidate Ext P1 document executed by a competent civil court. c) Declare that a legally valid document can be nullified only through an order passed by a competent civil court and the Tahsildar does not have any such power.” W.P.(C)No.10896/06 2 Now it is admitted by the parties that the 2nd respondent has paid off the entire amounts due from him, for recovery of which the attachment has been made, after availing of the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme declared by the Government. But, the Government takes the stand that still collection charges are pending payment and therefore the proceedings cannot be dropped. The 2nd respondent submits that no collection charges are payable, insofar as the 2nd respondent had paid the amount directly to the Excise Department by availing of the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. 2. The learned Government Pleader would contend that insofar as the payment is only after the revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated and the 1st respondent has attached the properties, collection charges are payable by the 2nd respondent. 3. I am of the opinion that I need not consider the sustainability of the demand for collection charges, in this writ petition. Insofar as the petitioner obtained the property by court sale, it cannot be said that the petitioner was party to any transfer of property, coming within the purview of Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, Exts.P4 W.P.(C)No.10896/06 3 and P7 orders are quashed. It is declared that the property obtained by the petitioner by Ext.P1 sale deed is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 44 of the Act. However, I make it clear that it would be open to the 1st respondent to proceed against the 2nd respondent for collection charges, if payable. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.10896/06 4