IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34187 of 2008(T)
1. P.B.MYMOO
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR & OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :19/11/2008
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 34187 OF 2008 T
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th November, 2008
JUDGMENT
I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader. By consent, the matter is taken
up for final hearing.
2. Petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P1 revenue recovery
notice. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
The respondents are proceeding against the movables of
the petitioner as per Ext.P1 demand notice. The amount is
payable by her son as per the order in M.P. No.1201/07 in M.C.
No.28/2004 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam. It is
stated that the property mentioned in Ext.P1 notice belongs to
the petitioner and not of her son and she obtained the same as
per Ext.P2 order. Ext.P2 is an order of the District Collector by
which there is a Government servant quarters at Thrikkakara
allotted to the petitioner.
3. Certainly, the petitioner cannot have any objection to
WPC.34187/08 T 2
the movables belonging to her son being attached. If, on the
other hand, the property of the petitioner is attached, then, as
held by this Court in M.S. Khadija v. Dy. Tahsildar (Revenue),
Kottayam (1974 KLT SN 3 OP No.3073/72), it is for the
petitioner to lay claim before the Officer attaching. In the event
of any such claim being filed, the Officer will look into the same
and take a decision thereon in accordance with law before any
further action is taken.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge