IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 27667 of 2003(R) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THOMAS SKARIA S/O. C.T.SKARIA, CHITTEZHATHIL HOUSE, KAKKOOR P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KOZHIKODE. 3. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KESTON ROAD, KAVADIYAR, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED 4. BABU BARADWAJ, S/O. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, AGED 54 YEARS, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, MARTHUR DESOM, VENGERI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 19.9.03 IN IA. 11149/03. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.K.BABU BY MR.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 BY ADV. MR.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.27667/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, SUB REGISTRY, KAKKODI DT. 22.3.03 TO THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED AND REGISTERED BEFORE THE SUB REGISTRY, KAKKODI AS SALE DEED NO.1008/03 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND SHRI BABU BARADWAJ. P3:- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 03-04 DT. 7.6.03 ISSEUD BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGERI. P4:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.DR. NO.48/93-94/LIOD DT. 15.7.03 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R39a):- COPY OF THE REQUISITION DT. 4.6.93 TOWARDS REVENUE RECOVERY INITIATED AGAINST THE ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(b):- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 18.2.03 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3(c):- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 18.2.03 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 27667 of 2003 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 20th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The additional fourth respondent was impleaded as per order in I.A. No. 1114 of 2003 and notice was ordered on 19.9.03; despite which, the necessary process charges were not remitted. Considering the requests made from the part of the petitioner, time was granted by this Court on different occasions. The position stands the same even today and no process charges have been remitted for effecting the service upon the additional 4th respondent, whose presence is very much essential to adjudicate the issue in question, particularly since the 3rd respondent has got a contention that the sale has been conducted by the vendor to Ext.P2 (i.e. the additional 4th respondent) to the petitioner in a clandestine deal and that the transaction is very much hit by Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It is also pointed out in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent that, the revenue recovery steps were initiated against the additional 4th respondent in the year 1993 as per Ext.R3(a) requisition dated 4.6.1993. Thereafter the recovery proceedings were resumed in the year 2001 and the property of the petitioner at Kozhikkode was attached as per notice dated 27.7.2001, when the petitioner contended that the building constructed WP (C) No. 27667 of 2003 : 2 : in the property stood in the name of his wife and that the property was offered as security to the Government for the loan availed by her. Thereafter the aditional 4th respondent left Kozhikode and was located at Trivandrum, when the recovery proceedings were resumed and notice dated 18.2.2003 was issued by the Revenue Authorities at Trivandrum as evident from Exts. P3(b) and P3(c). It is during the pendency of the above recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act that the additional 4th respondent chose to convey the property to the petitioner as per Ext.P2 Sale Deed dated 26.3.2003. This being the position, the conveyance does not have any legal consequence, being clearly hit by Section 44 (2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and as such, the prayer raised by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is quite wrong and misconceived. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd