Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE29H DAY OF JULY20157TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 35005 of 2011 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- PUSHPALATHA, W/O.NARAYANANUNNI, VADAKKEPPATT HOUSE THIRUVEGAPPURA P.O., OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM - 679 101.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVEGAPPURA VILLAGE OFFICE, OTTAPALAM - 679 101.
5. SANKARANARAYANAN, S/O.RAVUNNI NAIR, PACHERY HOUSE, THIRUVEGAPPURA POST, OTTAPALAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 679 304 ...2/- WP(C).No. 35005 of 2011 (A) -2- *ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED --------------------------------- *ADDL.R6. KOZHIKKOTTIL UNNIKRISHNAN S/O.KOZHIKKOTTIL RAMAN, KOZHIKKOTTIL VEEDU PURAMANNUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. *IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED118/14 IN IA NO. 10581/14. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN R5 BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN ADDL. R6 BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2907-2015, ALONG WITH WPC. 6198/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...3/- WP(C).No. 35005 of 2011 (A) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : -------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DT.18.10.2004 ISSUED BY SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, VILAYUR. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVEGAPPURA DT. 8.5.2002. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT DT.14.10.2009 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT.27.10.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
OF THE3D RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT DT. 27.2.2010. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT DT. 27.2.2010. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C).NO.9480/10 DT. 22.3.2010. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 29.9.2010. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION U/S832) OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 27.2.2011. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 27.8.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn K. Vinod Chandran, J ------------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C).Nos.35005 of 2011-A & 6198 of 2012-Y ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2015 JUDGMENT
Both the writ petitions are with respect to the identical issue. W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 challenges the revenue recovery proceedings initiated, while W.P.(C).No.6198 of 2012 seeks implementation of the said proceedings.
2. W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 is taken as the leading case and the parties and documents are referred to as stated in the said writ petition. The admitted facts are that, one Janaki died out of an employment injury while employed with one Sankaranarayanan. Sankaranarayanan's daughter-in-law is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011, who seeks to avoid the distress created on the property, which she got conveyed from Sankaranarayanan. The additional 6th respondent in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.6198 of 2012, is the son of the deceased Janaki, one of the claimants before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner. WP(C).Nos.35005 of 2011 & - 2 - 6198 of 2012 3. The death occurred on 22.02.1998. The son of the deceased, along with other legal heirs, approached the Employee's Compensation Commissioner for compensation and an award dated 19.06.2006 was passed determining an amount of Rs.1,63,070/- [Rupees one lakh, sixty three thousand and seventy only] with 12% interest from the date of accident, as the compensation. Though the award is not produced in both the writ petitions, it is an admitted fact that it has become final. The issue to be considered is whether the recovery proceedings can be proceeded against the daughter-in-law of the employer, who claims to be a bonafide purchaser of two properties from the employer.
4. Sankaranarayanan transferred two items of property to his daughter-in-law by deed Nos.1456/99 and 1386/06, both of Sub Registrar's Office, Vilayur, dated respectively 22.07.1999 and 10.07.2006; both after the death of Janaki. The daughter-in-law contends that the said purchases were bonafide purchases, for consideration paid to the father-in-law and merely because the vendee is a close relative of the vendor, there can be no distress created on the property. WP(C).Nos.35005 of 2011 & - 3 - 6198 of 2012 5. Section 14A of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [for brevity "the Act"] creates a statutory charge on the assets of an employer on the liability accrued before the date of the transfer. This Court in K.Sreedharan v. Thajudeen Koya [1996 (1) KLJ246 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha [2007 (4) KLT386 found that the statutory charge would start from the accrual of the liability which could be related back to the date of injury. Hence, both the transactions, that occurred after the death of the employee, would be subject to the statutory charge created by Section 14A of the Act. In such circumstance, W.P.(C). No.35005 of 2011 would stand dismissed.
6. W.P.(C).No.6198 of 2012 is allowed, directing implementation of the revenue recovery proceedings. However, in the context that the writ petitions pending for long before this Court, the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 or her representative and if necessary the employer, and the representative of the legal heir shall appear before the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad on 20.08.2015 and produce a copy of the award. The Industrial Tribunal shall determine the amounts payable as per the award as on 31.08.2015. WP(C).Nos.35005 of 2011 & - 4 - 6198 of 2012 The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 or the employer shall be granted seven monthly instalments to satisfy the entire dues as determined by the Industrial Tribunal. The said amount shall be deposited on or before 10th of each succeeding month, commencing from 10.09.2015, before the Industrial Tribunal. On deposit of each such instalment, the same shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased. On satisfaction of the entire amounts, the Tribunal shall determine the future interest due from 31.08.2015 and the same shall be paid as the 8th instalment, on the next succeeding month. On satisfaction of the entire amounts, the same shall be recorded and proceedings finalised. The revenue recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance during the period of the instalments directed hereinabove. If any two consecutive defaults are committed by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 or the employer, the proceedings will revive and continue against the properties also. It is made clear that the daughter-in-law of the employer can be proceeded only against the properties which have been conveyed to her by the employer - her father-in-law. On satisfaction being recorded by the Tribunal, necessarily the WP(C).Nos.35005 of 2011 & - 5 - 6198 of 2012 petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 would be entitled to appear before the revenue recovery authorities, so as to seek lifting of the attachment of the properties. Ordered accordingly. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge. vku/- [ true copy ]