High Court of KeralaWP(C)/30296/2015disposed of

Haridasan v. The State Of Kerala

2015-12-02Honourable Dr. Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 30296 of 2015 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

---------------------- HARIDASAN, AGED 77 YEARS S/O.CHOZHY, THIRUNARAYANAPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S) :

----------------------------

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN 695 001.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PALAKKAD DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD - 679 001.

3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) REVENUE REVOCERY, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD - 679 101.

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER VELLINEZHI VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK PALAKKAD - 679 101.

5. ANEEMA, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.GIRISH KUMAR PALATTU ROAD, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT -679 101.

6. DOTTYMOL NEAR VELLINEZHI VILLAGE, H.NO.12/173, PATTAMBI PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 101.

R1 TO R4 BYGOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.T. LILLY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Mn ...2/-

WP(C).No. 30296 of 2015 (J) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

------------------------------------- EXT. P1TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1075/1984 DATED 30.3.1984 OF SRO CHERUPPULASSERY EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT. P2TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.5.2015.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

............................................................. ............................................................. Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2015 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the revenue recovery steps initiated by respondents 1 to 4 for recovery of amounts that are due from his son. In the writ petition, the specific case of the petitioner is that, for the sole reason that the petitioner's son was residing with him in his residence, the respondents, acting upon the revenue recovery notices issued against the son of the petitioner, entered the residential premises of the petitioner and took away various articles including movable articles belonging to the petitioner. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to refrain from proceeding against the properties belonging to the petitioner for recovery of amounts due from his son.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent wherein the sequence of events leading to the recovery

of movable properties that was effected from the house of the petitioner is narrated. I find from a perusal of the counter affidavit that there was some altercation at the residence of the petitioner at the time when the official respondents arrived at the residential premises of the petitioner for the purposes of effecting recovery of movable properties belonging to the petitioner's son. It is also apparent that apart from the movable properties belonging to the petitioner's son, who is the defaulter, there were certain other items of movable property, the ownership of which, in the petitioner's son, could not be established. The said items were also taken possession of by the official respondents. In the statement filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent on 28.10.

2015, it is seen that three items of movable property namely, a wooden table without drawer, a wooden divan cot and a motor bike having registration No.KL9 M 4982 were taken possession of by the official respondents. While the motor bike is one that belongs to the petitioner's son, who is the defaulter, the other two items appear to belong to the petitioner, and at any rate, there is nothing to indicate that the said items belonged to the petitioner's son.

i. The respondents 1 to 4 shall ensure that while proceeding against the petitioner's

son in accordance with the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, no steps shall be taken against the properties either movable or immovable belonging to the petitioner.

ii. The respondents shall forthwith return the two items of property namely, the wooden table without drawer and the wooden divan cot, that were taken from the premises of the petitioner, to the same premises. It is made clear that, the respondents can retain custody of the motor bike bearing registration No.KL9 M 4982 since the said vehicle belongs to the petitioner's son, who is the defaulter.

Iii. I make it clear that, nothing in this judgment shall stand in the way of respondents 1 to 4 pursuing any legal action in accordance with the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act against the petitioner's son, who is the defaulter for the purposes of the Revenue Recovery Act.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/02.12.15