IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18813 of 2010(B)
1. SAINABA ALIAS JAINABA,AGED 74 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY,
... Respondent
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
3. THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA,
4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :17/06/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
.........................................
WP (C) No. 18813 of 2010
.........................................
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
————————
The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the recovery
proceedings being pursued by the respondents on the
strength of Exhibit P3 and P4 notices issued in the name
of the ‘Son’ of the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery
Act, for realization of the amounts stated as due from the
latter. Petitioner’s case is that the property is belonging
to the petitioner who is in no way liable or responsible
for the liability of the ‘Son’ if any.
2. The ‘Son’ of the petitioner by name Sajad, was
running a metal crusher and there was some liability from
him towards alleged sales tax arrears, to be satisfied.
Since the unit was not running on profit, the ‘Son’ of the
2
WP (C) No. 18813 of 2010
petitioner subsequently sold the same. On the basis of the
requisition made by the concerned authority, Exhibit P3 and
Exhibit P4 notices have been issued under the Revenue
Recovery Act against the ‘Son’ of the petitioner . But the
respondents are stated as trying to implement the said
proceedings, as against the property of the petitioner, in
spite of the fact that the defaulter has no property of his
own.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is enjoying the property involved by virtue of
Exhibit P1 and P2 title deeds with absolute ownership and
the Son/defaulter has absolutely no right or interest over
the same in any manner.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
5. Considering the fact that, the petitioner has already
exposed his grievances by filing Exhibit P5 representation
3
WP (C) No. 18813 of 2010
before the fourth respondent, this Court finds it fit and
proper to direct the said respondent to consider Exhibit P5
as sought for vide prayer No.3 in the Writ Petition.
6. Accordingly, the fourth respondent is directed to
consider Exhibit P5 representation and pass appropriate
orders thereon, in accordance with law, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till
final orders are passed on above, no coercive steps shall be
persuade against the petitioner under any circumstances.
The writ petition is disposed of, as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
rkc