M.Kala Rani. Vs. the District Collector Coimbatore, and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[vinod k.sharma, j.] - revenue recovery act --  the petitioner has approached this court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from initiating revenue recovery proceedings with respect to the property measuring 97 cents comprised in s.no.617/2 (part) and 617/3 kuniamuthur village, coimbatore south. the petitioner purchased the share in the property of tmt. uma rani vide registered sale deed dated 26.05.2008.  the mother-in-law of the petitioner also sold part of the property to one vigneshwaran.  the petitioner set up her own business by mortgaging her property to tiic. the petitioner has challenged the notice on the ground that the property belonging to the petitioner could not be attached to execute the order passed against her husband. the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by the notice issued to her husband in execution of award passed against him. connected miscellaneous petition is closed.writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus,  forbearing the respondents from initiating revenue recovery proceedings with respect to the property measuring an extent of 97 cents comprised in s.no.617/2 (part) and 617/3 kuniamuthur village, coimbatore south.vinod k.sharma, j.order1. the petitioner has approached this court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from initiating revenue recovery proceedings with respect to the property measuring 97 cents comprised in s.no.617/2 (part) and 617/3 kuniamuthur village, coimbatore south.2. the pleaded case of the petitioner, is that the property measuring 2 acres comprised in s.no.617 in kuniamuthur village, coimbatore together with the right of way in s.no.616 was purchased by the petitioner, her mother-in-law santha, and uma rani, sister of her father-in-law vide sale deed dated 17.02.1992.3. thereafter by way of oral partition between the co-owners,   the mother-in-law of the petitioner was allotted 62 cents of land in the extreme western end of the property (s.no.617/1), whereas uma rani was allotted 69 cents of land on the eastern extreme (s.no.617/3) whereas the petitioner was allotted 69 cents in the middle (s.no.617/2) as her share in the property.4. originally, the property owned by the mother-in-law, was taken on lease by the husband of the petitioner for running yarn processing unit, but later the business was subsequently closed.5. the petitioner purchased the share in the property of tmt. uma rani vide registered sale deed dated 26.05.2008.  the mother-in-law of the petitioner also sold part of the property to one vigneshwaran.  the petitioner set up her own business by mortgaging her property to tiic.6. the case of the petitioner is that the respondent no.2 served a notice on 12.09.2011 to the husband of the petitioner, informing him that his property will be attached, to execute the order passed by the commissioner, workmen's compensation, coimbatore.  the petitioner has challenged the notice on the ground that the property belonging to the petitioner could not be attached to execute the order passed against her husband.7.  the writ petition is opposed by the learned additional govt. pleader, on the ground that the writ petition is totally misconceived as no order of attachment of any property has been passed, and only notice was issued to the husband of the petitioner for initiating proceedings under revenue recovery act to recover the awarded amount from him.  it will be for the husband of the petitioner to file objection to the impugned notice by appearing before the authorities in the recovery proceedings.8. it is needless to  mention that in the recovery proceedings, the respondents cannot attach the property belongs to the husband of the petitioner, as it is settled law that an order can only be executed against the judgment debtor or his property, including interest if any, in the property and not against third parties.9. the writ petition seems to have been filed on the apprehension, that the property of the petitioner may be attached in execution of an award passed by the commissioner, workmen's compensation, coimbatore.10. it is not in disputed that no attachment has been ordered nor any notice issued to the petitioner. the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by the notice issued to her husband in execution of award passed against him.11. the writ petition is not only misconceived, but also premature, as no adverse order has been passed, nor any notice issued to the petitioner under the revenue recovery act.no merit, dismissed.connected miscellaneous petition is  closed.no cost.