IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 27996 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUHARA HASSAN, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.HASSAN, KARUKUNNATHU HOUSE, MOSQUE LANE SRM ROAD ERNAKULAM KOCHI - 18. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DIST. 682030. 2. THE THASILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM KOCHI - 682011. 3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE ERNAKULAM - 682011. 4. SHAKEEL K.H. AGED 45 YEARS, 43/2281, KARUKKUNATH LANE, MOSQUE LANE, NEAR THOTTATHUPADY PALLY, SRAM ROAD, COCHIN -18. 5. SHAMEER K.H. AGED 39 YEARS, 43/2281, KARUKKUNATH LANE, MOSQUE LANE, NEAR THOTTATHUPADY PALLY, SRM ROAD, COCHIN - 18. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ERNAKULAM 1 RANGE, CENTRAL EXCISE BYHAVAN, KATHRIKADAVU, KOCHI -17. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCIS FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 27996 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the mother of respondents 4 and 5. According to the petitioner landed property having an extent of 9.074 cents situated in Ernakulam village is in the absolute ownership and possession of petitioner and her daughter Mrs.Shaheen Rafi. It is stated that the property in question was owned by the deceased husband of the petitioner, and after his death the legal heirs have executed Ext.P1 release deed in favour of the petitioner and her daughter, on 24.07.2002. Thereafter the petitioner and her daughter alone is in ownership and possession of the property is the contention. 2. Challenge in this Writ Petition is against revenue recovery steps being pursued against property covered under Ext.P1 and against the movables situated therein, for realising arrears of central excise due from respondents 4 and 5. It is contended that respondents 4 and 5, who are the defaulters, has no ownership or interest in the property covered under Ext.P1 document, and the movables situated therein belongs absolutely to the petitioner and her daughter. 3. In the counter affidavit of the 6th respondent, who is the requisitioning authority, it is specifically contended that the central 2 WP(C) No. 27996/2010 excise dues which are sought to be recovered pertains to a period from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2002 and the property in question is liable to be proceeded against since Ext.P1 deed was executed only on 24.07.2002. It is contended that Ext.P1 deed itself was executed as part of a collusive attempt of respondents 4 and 5, with an intention to evade payment of amounts due to the department. 4. Going by provisions contained in the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, it is evident that any person interested on any of the properties which is proceeded against, has got a right to submit a claim before the appropriate authority seeking release of the attachment or can claim exemption from being proceeded against on the basis that such property is not liable for the arrears. Section 46 of the Act provides opportunity for such claims before the competent authority. 5. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the dispute as to whether the property covered under Ext.P1 and the movables situated therein are liable to be proceeded or not, pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5, need not be decided in this Writ Petition, because remedy is provided under the relevant statute. 6. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to move before the appropriate authority under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 3 WP(C) No. 27996/2010 7. It is made clear that if any such claim is submitted by the petitioner within a period of ten days from today, the second respondent shall consider the same and take appropriate decision thereof, without any further delay, at any rate within a period of two weeks thereafter. 8. In order to facilitate the petitioner to move before the second respondent, further coercive steps pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc