IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 30709 of 2007(E) -------------------------- OPMV.497/1991 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.M.AMBUJAKSHY, THONDOOKKARA, CHIRAKKAKODU, OLLURKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSIVAPEROOR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N.MENON SRI.A.C.DEVY SRI.K.D.BABU(KOTTACKAL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.SULAIMAN, VALKULAMBU, KORANCHIRA P.O., VADAKKANCHERRY. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KIZHAKKENCHERRY-1, ALATHUR TALUK. 6. K.PRABHAKARAN, THACHARAYIL, VELLANIKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 654. 7. RATNAVALLI, W/O. PRABHAKARAN, RESIDING AT THACHARAYIL, VELLANIKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 654. ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN FOR R.1 SRI.BABY MATHEW FOR R.1 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 30709/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.18.2.2005 BY R4. P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.12.9.2006. P3. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.6.10.2006. P4. COPY OF THE REPLY DT.6.10.2006. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.2.7.2007. P6. COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER DTD.13.8.2007. P7. COPY OF THE NOTICE NIL-9.07. P8. COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD.5.4.99. P9. COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.98/2000 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALATHUR. P10. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.9.1.2000 IN O.S.NO.229/2000 BY -DO-. P11. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.229/2000. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 30709 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner purchased certain properties from respondents 6 and 7. The 6th respondent was a driver of a vehicle involved in a motor accident, in respect of which, the 1st respondent filed a motor accident claim for compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the claim for ` 39,500/- with 12% interest from 24.4.1991 and ` 450/- towards costs to be realised from the owner and driver of the vehicle. That award was passed in 1997. The petitioner purchased the property belonging to the 6th respondent driver from him in 1999. Execution proceedings were initiated for recovery of the amounts covered by the award, which resulted in revenue recovery proceedings. In those proceedings, the Revenue authorities took steps to invalidate the sale in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the same is hit by Section 44(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act. Proceedings ended in Exts.P5, P6 and P7 orders. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P5, P6 and P7 orders seeking the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to produce the entire records leading to the issuance of Exts.P5, P6 and P7. (ii) issue a writ of certiorari and quash Exts.P5, P6 & P7 which were illegally issued by the 4th respondent. (iii) issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order restraining the respondents particularly respondents 3 to 5 from doing anything against 10 cents of property in Resurvey No.195/6, 7 of Kizhakkencherry-I village which was purchased by the petitioner vide Exhibit P8 Sale Deed, under the shade of illegally issued Exts.P5 to P7 by the 4th respondent.” w.p.c.30709/07 2 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the property and respondents 6 and 7 sold the property for finding funds for treatment of the 7th respondent and there is no malafide intention to defeat the creditors in the sale. Therefore, the proceedings initiated under Section 44(2) are unsustainable is the contention raised. 3. The learned Government Pleader would point out that against revenue recovery proceedings, the petitioner had filed O.S.No.229/2000 before the Munsiff's Court, Alathur. In that suit, the Munsiff found that the 1st respondent herein is a necessary party and directed the petitioner to implead him as a party to the said suit. Despite giving several chances, the petitioner herein did not take any steps to implead the 1st respondent herein as a party to the said suit and, therefore, the suit was dismissed for default by Ext.P10. Having failed in her attempt to restrain the Revenue authorities from proceeding against the property under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the petitioner cannot now challenge the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act initiated by respondents 3 to 5 is the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader. He also submits that since the execution of the award was pending at the time of the sale by respondents 6 and 7 in favour of the petitioner, the sale is hit by Section 44(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. w.p.c.30709/07 3 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Admittedly the award was passed in 1997 against the 6th respondent who was the driver in the motor accident claim, who was found to be negligent in driving the vehicle, which resulted in the accident causing injury to the 1st respondent. That award has become final. Therefore, when the 6th respondent sought to sell the property after the award was passed, a reasonable assumption can be made that the sale is for the purpose of defeating the execution of the award by coercive proceedings against the 6th respondent. Apart from the same, having suffered Ext.P10 judgment in O.S.No.229/2000, wherein despite specific direction to implead the 1st respondent as a party to the suit, the petitioner refused to implead him and suffered dismissal of the original suit filed for restraining the revenue recovery proceedings, I do not think that the petitioner can now take a stand that the Revenue authorities cannot proceed against the property in question to realise the amounts due to the 1st respondent from the 6th respondent for satisfying the award. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. But this will not stand in the way of the petitioner paying off the amounts due in the award to save her property. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.30709/07 4