IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3136 of 2009(W)
1. MATHEW, THEVALAKKARA HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VARKEY JOSEPH, PERUMBRAYIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. AVINASH, S/O. GEORGE, VADAYATTUKUNNEL
3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :30/01/2009
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WP.(C) No. 3136 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
Award is passed against the petitioner’s son by the MACT,
Pala. The complaint of the petitioner is that recovery is directed against the
petitioner for the amount payable by the son of the petitioner, who is
presently employed in Gulf.
2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. In the nature of
the order I propose to pass, I feel that it is not necessary to issue notice to
respondents 1 and 2.
3. If the liability, which is sought to be enforced, is the liability
of the son of the petitioner under the MACT award, certainly, the petitioner
cannot be made liable and the properties of the petitioner cannot be
proceeded against. It is certainly open to the official respondents to proceed
against the property of the person liable under the award. Under the guise
of the property of the person liable, if the property of the petitioner is
attached, being movable or immovable, petitioner has the remedy to move
the authority in terms of the decision of this court reported in M.S.
Khadija v. Dy. Tahsildar (Revenue), Kottayam (1974 K.L.T. SN 3) in
WPC.3136/2009. 2
respect of movables and Section 46 of the Revenue Recovery Act, if it is in
respect of immovable property.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
sb