Allowed

Sanobar.K.K v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC22 Nov 2016WP(C)/37416/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery proceedings against him for an MACT award, claiming the vehicle involved had been sold and authorities should attach it first. The court directed authorities to attempt attaching the vehicle KCF 3056 before proceeding against other assets.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to revenue authorities to first attempt to attach and sell vehicle KCF 3056 before proceeding against other assets.

Sanobar.K.K Vs the Village Officer — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 37416 of 2016 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SANOBAR.K.K, AGED 36, S/O.KHALID T.K. 23/710, PALLURUTHY, MADURAI CO.ROAD, KOCHI-682006.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.POULOSE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAKOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682010.

¶11

2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682001.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶13

4. SRI.ANAS, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.BASHEER, THOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMBANKALLU BHAGAM KARIKODU KARA, KARIKODU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O.-685584.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.P.PRADEEP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

WP(C).No. 37416 of 2016 (B)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT. P1	: TRUE COPY OF THE	NOTICE NO.A2.2088/15 DATED	9.10.2015
	UNDER SECTION 34.
EXT. P2	: TRUE COPY OF THE	NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF	THE
	REVENUE RECOVERY	ACT DATED 9.10.2015.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶26

=============== W.P. (C) No. 37416 of 2016

¶27

==================

¶28

Dated this, the 22^nd day of November, 2016

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

Petitioner had approached this Court challenging revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Demand had been made based on an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Petitioner does not challenge the demand, but contends that the revenue recovery authorities should first proceed against the vehicle involved in the accident rather than proceeding against the property of the petitioner.

¶31

According to the petitioner, he was the registered owner of a vehicle KCF 3056, which, according to him, had been sold by virtue of an agreement in favour of another person with certain conditions that it shall not be used unless the registration is changed in another person's name. According to the petitioner, contrary to the terms of the agreement, the person to whom vehicle was entrusted, permitted somebody else to use the vehicle without a proper insurance. The vehicle met with an accident and a claim arose, which resulted in the award.

¶32

W.P(C) No.37416/16

¶33

-:2:-

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle is still available to be proceeded against and the present person who is in possession of the vehicle is not taking any steps to discharge the liability. He is a person who has caused the accident and therefore initially the revenue authorities should proceed against the vehicle itself before proceeding further in the matter.

¶35

Having regard to the aforesaid submission, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot deny his liability in so far as the award has already been passed against him, which has become final. However, before proceeding to attach and sell the movable/immovable property of the petitioner, an attempt may be made by the revenue authorities to attach vehicle KCF 3056 and try to effect sale of the said vehicle. If the vehicle cannot be traced or if it is not possible to recover any amount by sale of the said vehicle, nothing prevents the revenue authorities in proceeding further pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2.

¶36

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶37

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶38

CONTINUED AT PAGE NO.3.

Rp22/11/2016

W.P(C) No.37416/16

-:3:-

The registration number of the vehicle “KCF 3056” occurring in the 2^nd and 4^th paragraphs of the judgment dated 22/11/2016 in WP(C) No. 37416/2016 is deleted and substituted as “KCF 3054” as per order dated 01/03/2017 in I.A.No.656/2017 in WP(C) No. 37416/2016.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

Registrar (Judicial)

Sanobar.K.K v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanobar.K.K v. the Village Officer

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

Punjab National Bank Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal and Others

The Kerala State Co. Operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. Vs Pd.Raphael

T.C. John Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Karthik Constructions Vs Union Bank of India

Jibimol J.P. Vs the Authorised Officer, Chief Manager (Advances), Sbt

M/S a.v.G.Motores Limited Kottayam Vs the Assistant Commissioner, Spl.Circle, Commercial Taxes