Remanded

Chandrika Balan v. Tahsildar (R.R),Thrissur

Kerala HC4 Sept 2012WP(C)/8472/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged revenue recovery proceedings against movable and immovable properties. Court noted verification excluded defaulter's land but directed petitioner to substantiate claims regarding previously sold movable items before further steps.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings under Ext.P4 stayed for 3 months; petitioner directed to appear with materials substantiating claim that immovable properties are not defaulter's and items were already sold.

Chandrika Balan Vs Tahsildar (R.R),Thrissur — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/13TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 8472 of 2008 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MRS.CHANDRIKA BALAN, PUZHAKKADAVIL HOUSE, ARNATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.K.G.SAROJINI, SMT.N.C.SALINI.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. TAHSILDAR (RR), CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR.

¶11

2. VILLAGE OFFICER, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMBIL.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C).NO.8472/2008-H:

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR (RR), PROPOSING TO SELL THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES COMPRISED IN SY. NO.56/6 ALONG WITH BUILDING NO.T.C. 48/120 AND OTHER BUILDINGS, COMPOUND WALL ALONG WITH ALL IMPROVEMENTS.

¶18

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. RR1-296/99 DTD. 24/11/05.

¶19

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.10619/07. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. RR-296/99 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 12 REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(C) NO.8472 OF 2008(H)

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 4^th day of September, 2012

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

Petitioner is the wife of late P.K. Balan. Sri. P.K. Balan was an Abkari Contractor, who was also a defaulter of substantial amounts due to the Government. According to the petitioner, in the guise of recovering the dues of Sri. P.K. Balan, revenue recovery proceedings are being initiated and the respondents are proceeding against the movable and immovable properties owned by her. It is also her case that on an earlier occasion the movable items were sold and that those items were purchased by her brother and entrusted to her. It is stated that these immovable items are once again proposed to be sold by the respondent who have issued Ext.P4 notice. It is with these allegations the writ petition has been filed.

¶31

As far as the immovable property that is sought to be proceeded against is concerned, in Ext.P3 judgment rendered by this court in Writ Petition(c).No.10619/07, respondents were directed to verify the title deeds and confirm whether the property belongs to the defaulter. Case of the petitioner is that it is without conducting such

¶32

WPC.No. 8472/2008

¶33

:2 :

¶34

a verification, proceedings are continued. However, in the counter affidavit of the respondents, it is stated that they are proceeding against 35 cents of land covered by document No.636/91 dated 20.12.1991 of SRO Ayyanthole.

¶35

In so far as the verification ordered by this court in Ext.P3 judgment is concerned, the respondents have stated thus;

¶36

“Vide Exhibit P3 judgment this Hon'ble Court disposed of writ petition(c).No.10619/2007. As directed by this Hon'ble Court vide Exhibit P3 judgment, verification was done and it was revealed that 35 cents of property proceeded against exclusively belongs to the defaulter which is comprised in Survey No.56/6 P of Aranattukara Village as per Document No.636/91 dated 20.2.1991 of SRO, Ayyanthole, which has been purchased from one Sadanandan. It was revealed that the said 35 cents of land in Survey No.56/6 P of Aranattukara Village which situates on the Western boundary of the defaulter's property. The said property belongs to the petitioner by virtue of Document No.637/91 dated 20.02.1991 of SRO, Ayyanthole. In the light of the enquiry, the Sale proceedings continued against the defaulter's 35 Cents of property.”

¶37

From the above it is therefore evident that the verification in pursuance to Ext.P3 judgment was conducted and that the respondents are proceeding only against 35 cents of land which was owned by the defaulter and that the 20 cents comprised in

¶38

WPC.No. 8472/2008

¶39

:3 :

¶40

Sy.No.56/6B of Aranattukara Village owned by the petitioner is excluded from the proceedings. Therefore, there cannot be any controversy in so far as the recovery proceedings against the immovable properties are concerned.

¶41

What remains is the grievance of the petitioner regarding the proceedings against the movable items listed in Ext.P4 notice. In so far as Ext.P4 notice is concerned, case of the petitioner is that the movable items were already sold and that the properties were purchased by her brother and are entrusted to them. It is stated that these items cannot once again be proceeded against. However, the case of the respondent is that, in 2002, when sale was conducted there were only 22 items of movable properties which are not included in Ext.P4. The respondents also assert that, the case of the petitioner that these very properties were sold on a previous occasion is incorrect.

¶42

In my view, if what the petitioner contends is factually correct there is force in the submission. However, this factual contention will have to be corroborated by the petitioner. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to produce materials supporting her contention

¶43

WPC.No. 8472/2008

¶44

:4 :

¶45

before the first respondent and there upon it is for the first respondent to examine the genuineness of the claim and pass orders thereon.

¶46

Therefore, I direct that the petitioner will appear before the first respondent within 4 weeks from today along with a copy of this judgment and producing materials substantiating her claim that the immovable properties included in Ext.P4 are not that of the defaulter and that any of these items were already sold. If materials are so produced, the first respondent will enquire into that claim and will pass appropriate orders in the matter.

¶47

In order to enable the petitioner to do so, I direct that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 will stand stayed for a further period of 3 months from today and once orders are passed by the first respondent, the parties will be governed by such orders.

¶48

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)

JUDGE

vi/

WPC.No. 8472/2008

¶53

:5 :

Chandrika Balan v. Tahsildar (R.R),Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrika Balan v. Tahsildar (R.R),Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Raveendran Vs Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs P.M.Jacob

Amrutha V.P. Vs Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Elsy Bose Vs the District Collector

Vasudevan Vs Chief Manager

M/S.Indus Ind Bank Ltd. Vs the Intelligence Inspector