The High Court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought to restrain revenue recovery proceedings initiated against her son for an ex-parte motor accident compensation award. The Court held the petitioner lacked locus standi as notices were issued only against the son.
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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 22217 of 2018
PETITIONER:
OMANA, W/O. RAJU, AGED 51 YEARS, VALIYATHEKKETHIL HOUSE, MAVANAL, KUMMANNOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 691.
BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE KUM.S.ASHITHA SMT.ACHU SHUBHA ABRAHAM SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.
SRI. BIMAL K.NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WPC 22217 OF 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is stated to be a house wife, is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 5.67 ares comprising of 2.43 ares in Survey No.278/1/18; 1.62 ares in Survey No.278/1/7 of Ayiravan Village, Kozhanchery Taluk, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed dated 10.04.1997 of the Sub Registrar Office, Konny, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction restraining the respondents from proceeding against her property for realisation of dues covered by Ext.P3 to P5 revenue recovery proceedings issued by the 1st respondent dated 19.01.2018 and 01.01.2018 respectively. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that her properties are not liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for the amounts claimed under Exhibit P6 award.
WPC 22217 OF 2018 3
4
WPC 22217 OF 2018
respondent.
WPC 22217 OF 2018 5
awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, together with 9% interest from 07.04.2010, the date of petition, till realisation, with a cost of Rs.19,633/-. The insurer of the vehicle was directed to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal. Since the additional 5th respondent, who is none other than the son of the petitioner, was riding the said motorcycle without any valid driving licence, the insurer was permitted to recover the amount by proceeding against the additional 5th respondent.
WPC 22217 OF 2018 6
notices, recovery proceedings are initiated against the additional 5th respondent, who is the son of the petitioner, and not against the petitioner. As such, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge those demand notices. The learned Senior Government Pleader would also submit that the 2nd respondent Deputy Tahsildar has no intention to proceed against the property owned by the petitioner, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed and that, the proceedings are initiated against the additional 5th respondent, who is the son of the petitioner.
WPC 22217 OF 2018 7
grievance against those notices, especially when the specific stand taken by the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, from respondents 1 to 3 is that revenue recovery proceedings are initiated against the additional 5th respondent and not against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against Exts.P3 to P5 notices and the writ petition is accordingly stands dismissed.
It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of respondents 1 to 3 proceeding against any personal assets, movable or immovable, of the additional 5th respondent, who is the son of the petitioner, and also taking further proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act through the competent authority at the place of his residence.
Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE
yd
8
WPC 22217 OF 2018
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1116/1997 OF SRO, KOCHI DATED 10.04.1997.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 26.07.2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYIRAVAN. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE NO. RRC NO. 2017/3481/03 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM NO. 1 DATED 19.01.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF RECOVERY NOTICE NO. RRC NO. 2017/3481/03 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM NO. 10 DATED 19.01.2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE FORM NO. 25 DATED 01.01.2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 11.03.2016 IN OP(MV) NO. 396/2010 OF THE TRIBUNAL OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS, PATHANAMTHITTA.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL
TRUE COPY
PA TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge demand notices issued against her son in revenue recovery proceedings.
Whether interference is warranted in demand notices issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for an award against the petitioner's son.
OMANA
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA
THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYIRAVAN VILLAGE
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LIMITED
BIJU V.R.
ANIL K.N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
