IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2459 of 2008()
1. K.N.GIRISH, KAMALADALAM,
... Petitioner
2. JAYALEKSHMI, WIFE OF SATHEESH,
Vs
1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALLEPPEY.
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
4. PADMINI AMMA, KATTIKKATTU VEEDU,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :08/01/2009
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
--------------------------------------
W.A.No.2459 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated 8th January, 2009
JUDGMENT
Koshy, Ag.C.J.
Appellants/petitioners are challenging recovery
proceedings for recovery of arrears of abkari dues from petitioners’ mother
who carried on abkari business during 1993-94 along with her brother. The
defaulters contested the liability by filing O.P.No.2180 of 1995 and it was
rejected. It is the contention of the petitioners that they obtained part of
the properties of the defaulters by a decree of compromise and, therefore,
that part of the property should not be proceeded with for recovering the
dues. According to the learned single Judge, it is a collusive decree. In any
event, compromise was effected when demands were pending and already
notices were there. Under section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act,
agreement entered into by the defaulter in respect of any immovable
property after service of demand on him is not binding on the Government.
Recovery proceedings are not affected by subsequent transfer. If
petitioners are parties to the compromise decree, it is for them to file suit
for damages. We fully agree with the learned single Judge.
The appeal is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
tks