IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 3612 of 2008(E)
1. E.U.GOVIND, C.C.1/1390,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(RR),
For Petitioner :SRI.V.PREMCHAND
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/02/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 3612 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated: February 4, 2008
JUDGMENT
The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P4
in so far as it relates to the property belonging to the petitioner.
The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the 2nd respondent
cannot sell the property owned by the petitioner without hearing
him and without demarcating the same. According to the
petitioner a plot of land belonging to him and a plot of land
originally owned by his father are lying contiguous and that steps
are now taken by the respondents for disposal of a portion of the
property which lies without demarcating the boundaries separating
them. Petitioner also submits that in Ext.P2 judgment this court
had directed that the disposal of the property can only be after
issuing notice to the petitioner.
2. It is evident from the facts stated in the writ petition that
the petitioner’s father got the property by virtue of partition deed
No.3527/90 executed among his family members. It is also stated
that the petitioner has co-ownership in 8.3 cents of property by
WP(C) 3612/08 Page numbers
virtue of a settlement deed dated 16.1.1991 executed by the wife of
Dr. Raveendranathan, elder brother of the petitioner’s father. Thus
it is obvious that the plots in question are covered by separate
documents of title.
3. On instructions the learned Government Pleader submits
that the proceedings initiated is against the property covered by
document No.3527/1990 and that the 2nd respondent had got the
property surveyed and measured and it is only after demarcating
the property of the defaulter that steps have been taken for
realisation of the amount due to the department.
4. From this it is evident that the property that is proceeded
against does not include any portion of the petitioner’s property and
that the property proceeded against has been duly identified by the
respondents. If that be the factual situation, the contention of the
petitioner that since the property is lying contiguous, it should be
identified with notice to him, has no substance.
5. In so far as the other plea raised by the petitioner that in
Ext.P2 judgment, this court has directed that the petitioner should
be given notice before steps are taken under the provisions of the
Revenue Recovery Act is concerned, a reading of paragraph 4 f the
WP(C) 3612/08 Page numbers
judgment itself clarifies that the said direction becomes relevant
only if the respondents initiate any proceedings against the
petitioner’s property. In this case, as is evident from what has
been noted above, proceedings are initiated against the property
belonging to the defaulter and covered by partition deed
No.3527/90 and therefore the direction in paragraph 4 has no
relevance.
6. Yet another contention that is raised by the petitioner is
that coming to know of the steps taken by the respondents, the
petitioner had caused Ext.P3 notice issued to the 2nd respondent
and that without even replying to the same, further action has been
initiated. This, on instructions, is contradicted by the learned
Government Pleader by submitting that on receipt of Ext.P3, the 2nd
respondent has duly replied to the counsel informing about the
survey that is already conducted by the respondents.
In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any merit
in this writ petition. It is only to be dismissed and I do so.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mt/-