IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE10H DAY OF JANUARY201420TH POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 32089 of 2013 (I) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- K. ANIL KUMAR AGED55YEARS S/O KARUNAKARAN, AMBALAKKARA HOUSE, PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE RECOVERY) REVENUE RECOVERY, KOLLAM-691 001.
3. THE TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA-691 505.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KOTTARAKKARA-691 505.
5. K.BAIJU, AGED48YEARS, S/O KARUNAKARAN, AMBALAKKARA HOUSE, KOTTARAKKARA KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RAFEEK V.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1001-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32089 of 2013 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.2005/13 OF S.R.O KOTTARAKKARA DATED276.2013 EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF FORM1B) FOR MUTATION. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.786/12 OF S.R.O, POOYAPPALLY DATED145.2012. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED296.2012 IN WPC1524212. EXHIBITP6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED1411.2012. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION. EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED59.2013 IN WPC2193313. EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED269.2013. EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER DATED309.2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 32089 OF2013------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of January, 2014 JUDGMENT
The property against which the revenue recovery proceedings are initiated originally belonged to the petitioner and the fifth respondent jointly. The petitioner has since executed Ext.P1 settlement deed transferring his one half right over the property in favour of the fifth respondent. The petitioner wants the attachment over the property to be lifted after accepting another property as security for the amount demanded.
2. The Government Pleader points out that it is not practical to accept another property as security when the revenue recovery proceedings are midway. It is also urged that there is no machinery to test the security and that it is not possible to substitute another property in the midst of revenue recovery proceedings. I find force in this submission.
3. The petitioner can however deposit the amount demanded subject to the outcome of appeal pending with the 2 WP(C) No. 32089/2013 standing empowered committee. The said appeal has already been directed to be disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment in WP(C) No. 21933/2013. I hasten to add that the petitioner can claim refund of the amount deposited dependent on the outcome of the appeal by the standing empowered committee.
4. The amount demanded if deposited by the petitioner as above should lead to the lifting of attachment in respect of the property conveyed by the settlement deed. The petitioner shall move respondents 1 to 4 after the entire amount is deposited in which case the attachment over property shall be declared to be lifted. This should normally given an unimpeachable title over the property to the fifth respondent pursuant to the settlement deed referred to above. The Writ Petition is disposed of. V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd