Petitioner challenged arrest notice in revenue recovery matter relying on ill health. Court noted proceedings under Section 65 were already finalized with objections rejected. Held as abuse of process.
W.P. dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 to the State.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/13TH JYAISHTA, 1938H
WP(C).No. 969 of 2016 (U)
PETITIONER :
JOY K.O., AGED 64, S/O.KOMBAN OUSEPH, WEST FORT, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR, REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MARIAMMA, AGED 55, W/O.JOY, KOMBAN OUSEPH, WEST FORT, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THRISSUR TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR-680 001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TAMIL NADU CENTRAL SALES TAX, THIRUNELVELI, TAMIL NADU, PIN-600 001.
*ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED
*Addl. R5. DEVARAJ.M., S/O.MANUEL, PLAVILA ROMANIO HOUSE, KIZHAKKEKOTTA, THRISSUR.
*ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/2/2016 IN IA.NO.1996/2016.
R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY.K.T ADDL.R5 BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 969 of 2016 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT-P1: | A TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE SERVED ON THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT-P2: | A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF MOVABLES AUCTIONED DATED NIL. |
| EXHIBIT-P3: | A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 17.12.07. |
| EXHIBIT-P4: | A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AMALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, DATED 3.2.2014. |
| EXHIBIT-P5: | A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE PETITIONER DATED 28.1.2014. |
| EXHIBIT-P6: | A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 19.2.2014 OFFICE COPY. |
| EXHIBIT-P7: | A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY IN THE NAME OF THE POWER HOLDER EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21.12.2015. |
| EXHIBIT-P8: | A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE PETITIONER DATED 15.12.2015. |
| EXHIBIT-P9: | A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE PETITIONER DATED 20.11.2015. |
| EXHIBIT-P10: | A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY, DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOLOGY, AMALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, THRISSUR DATED 23.12.2015. |
| EXHIBIT-P11: | A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2015. |
| EXHIBIT-P12: | A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AMALA CARDIAC CENTER, THRISSUR DATED 21.11.2015. |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R5(A): A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED DATED 27/5/2000 BY THE PETITIONER TO HIS WIFE
EXHIBIT R5(B): A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/3/2006 IN O.P.NO.16958 OF 2001
EXHIBIT R5(C): A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER'S WIFE TO THOMAS K. ANTONY DATED 16/5/2006
2/-
-2-
WP(C).NO.969/2016
| EXHIBIT R5(D): |
A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY ANTONY IN FAVOUR OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 2/9/2006 |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT R5(E): |
A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.6777/1/2008 OF THRISSUR S.R.O. DATED 28/10/2008 |
| EXHIBIT R5(F): |
A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3283/2009 OF THRISSUR S.R.O DATED 24/8/2009 |
| EXHIBIT R5(G): |
A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR DATED 20/12/2011 |
| EXHIBIT R5(H): |
A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE TAHSILDAR, (RR) THRISSUR DATED 5/12/2013. |
| EXHIBIT R5(I): |
A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/2/2014 IN WP(C).NO.5291 OF 2014. |
| EXHIBIT R5(J): |
A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 9/10/2014 |
| EXHIBIT R5(K): |
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/11/2014 WP(C).NO.27937 OF 2014 |
| EXHIBIT R5(L): |
A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER DATED 19/12/2014. |
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
============= W.P. (C) No. 969 of 2016
===================
Dated this, the 3rd day of June, 2016
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext.P9 notice to show cause why a warrant of arrest should not been issued. According to the petitioner, he is a cardiac patient and therefore if further steps are taken in the matter, he will be put to irreparable loss and injury. According to the petitioner, he filed Ext.P11 objection before the District Collector, but without considering Ext.P11, attempts are being made to arrest and detain him and therefore this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P9.
7,12,725/-. The District Collector initiated steps under Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act which was duly served on 19/7/2000. Since revenue recovery proceedings were taken, movables of the defaulter was attached and sold for 18,500/-. Thereafter, notice under SectionW.P(C) No.969/16
-:2:-
34 of the Revenue Recovery Act was issued and his landed property was attached. Property was in joint ownership of defaulter and his wife Smt.Mariyamma. She filed OS No.1529/2000 seeking injunction and the suit was later dismissed. It is stated that the petitioner transferred his property in the name of his wife on 27/5/2000.
W.P(C) No.969/16
-:3:-
District Collector took steps to invoke Section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Hearing was conducted on 19/12/2014. Petitioner filed an objection before the District Collector which was disposed of on 27/4/2014. Petitioner preferred a revision which again was dismissed after hearing on 19/12/2014. Petitioner filed WP(C) No. 6501/2015 before this Court. In the meanwhile, Mr.Devarajan filed WP(C) No. 27937/2014 before this Court challenging revenue recovery proceedings against the property acquired by him. An interim order of stay has been granted by this Court on 4/8/2015 directing to take action against the petitioner under Section 65 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act within a specified time. It is stated that the intention of the petitioner is not to settle the liability.
W.P(C) No.969/16
-:4:-
entire particulars. It is evident from the materials on record, essentially the order passed in revision by the Land Revenue Commissioner produced as Ext.R5(l) that proceedings had already been taken by the District Collector under Section 65. The objections of the petitioner was heard and his objections were rejected. His revision against the said order is also rejected. It is observed by the Land Revenue Commissioner as under:
”The Revision Petitioner (defaulter) is liable to remit the Sale tax dues. On perusal of the records, it is found that the defaulter and his wife were willfully evading from the payment of arrears and filing cases with intent to defeat or delay the recovery proceedings. The defaulter had dishonestly transferred his property by falsely stating that no Sale tax arrears pending. It is seen that he is leading luxurious life in VIP apartment in Arattukara Village and financially sound to remit the arrears. Hence the proceedings no.G255771/09 dated 27/4/14 of the District Collector, Thrissur is upheld. The Revision Petition is dismissed of accordingly.”
The Collector's proceedings is dated 27/4/2014. This aspect of the matter is deliberately withheld from this Court and therefore, it is clear that this writ petition has been filed concealing material
W.P(C) No.969/16
-:5:-
particulars which is clear abuse of process. The petitioner who is a defaulter has raised unnecessary contentions in this matter when steps were taken to issue notice for arrest. In fact, no such notice was required at all in terms of Ext.P9. The Collector could have taken steps to arrest and detain the petitioner. Ext.P9 only a gives a second opportunity to settle the liability and does not call for any challenge in the present writ petition.
W.P(C) No.969/16
-:6:-
is not made, the said amount shall also be recovered by revenue
recovery proceedings.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
Rp3/06/2016
//True Copy//
P.S to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Ext.P9 notice to show cause for arrest is required when revival of recovery proceedings under Section 65 is in progress and objections rejected.
Whether the petitioner faced abuse of process by filing writ petition without disclosing finality of proceedings under Section 65 of Revenue Recovery Act.
JOY K.O.
THE STATE OF KERALA
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THE TAHSILDAR
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TAMIL NADU CENTRAL SALES TAX, THIRUNELVELI
DEVARAJ.M.
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court