Disposed

K.P.Kurian, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jul 2024WP(C)/3232/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A landowner challenged a revenue recovery notice seeking attachment of his property for his son's tax dues. The Commercial Tax Officer stated in a filed statement that recovery proceedings targeted only the son and not the petitioner or his property. Recording this statement, the court closed the writ petition without further adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed recording the additional 5th respondent's statement that no recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner or his property.

K.P.Kurian, Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3232 OF 2019

¶3

PETITIONER :-

¶4

K.P.KURIAN, AGED 70 YEARS
S/O PHILIPPOSE,KOLATHUPADAVIL HOUSE,KANNAMVATTA,
MADAPPALLY VILLAGE,CHENGANASSERY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686546.

¶5

BY ADVS.
K.SHAJ
SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

¶6

RESPONDENTS :-

¶7

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BYTHE CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶8

2 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY), CHENGANASSERY TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686101.

¶9

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686536.

¶10

4 SHAIJU KURIAN, M/S.OZONE KOCATHUPADAVIL,KANNAVATTA, CHANGANACHERRY-686101.

¶11

*5ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED :-

¶12

COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
IST CIRCLE, CHANGANACHERRY, REVENUE TOWER,
KOTTAYAM - 686 101.

¶13

*ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/03/2019 IN
I.A.NO.1/2019.

¶14

SMT. K.B. SONY -GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 3232 OF 2019

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P3 notice issued by respondents 1 to 3 under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.

¶20

The petitioner is the absolute owner of 8.50 Ares of land in Survey No.379/12/2 (Re.Survey No.17/12 in Block 9) of Madappally village obtained as per Sale Deed No.56/1991 of SRO Thengana. The 4^th respondent is the son of the petitioner. The 4^th respondent had incurred some financial liability and revenue recovery proceedings had been initiated against the 4th respondent. On 05.02.2018, respondents 2 and 3 entered into the property of the petitioner, seeking to initiate revenue recovery proceedings against the property belonging to the petitioner, covered under Ext.P1 – Sale Deed for the liabilities due from fourth respondent. Notices have been issued seeking attachment and sale of the movable and immovable assets of the 4^th respondent. The petitioner is not a defaulter and such the property of non-defaulter cannot be proceeded with. Aggrieved

¶21

WP(C) NO. 3232 OF 2019

¶22

¶23

by the action taken by the revenue authority, the petitioner has approached this Court with the above writ petition.

¶24

The additional 5^th respondent has filed a statement stating that Sri.Shaiju Kurian, the 4^th respondent is an assessee on the rolls of the 5^th respondent and amounts are due from him in respect of the assessment year 2009-10. It is further stated that revenue recovery proceedings are initiated only against the 4^th respondent and no recovery proceedings are initiated against the petitioner or his property .

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

¶26

The apprehension of the petitioner is that for the liability of the 4^th respondent the petitioner’s property is being proceeded with, by the revenue authorities, for realization of the amounts due from the 4^th respondent. In the statement filed by the additional 5^th respondent, it has been specifically stated that no revenue recovery proceedings were issued against the petitioner since he is not involved in the business of the 4^th respondent and further stated that revenue recovery

¶27

WP(C) NO. 3232 OF 2019

¶28

¶29

proceedings were initiated only against the fourth respondent.

¶30

Accordingly, this writ petition is closed, recording the statement filed by the additional 5^th respondent that, no recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for the arrears due from the 4^th respondent.

¶31

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE

¶32

SMA

¶33

WP(C) NO. 3232 OF 2019

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3232/2019

¶36

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :_

¶37

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.56/1991 OF
SRO THENGANA.

¶38

EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
01/02/2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE
PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2017-
2018

¶39

EXHIBIT P3

¶40

TRUE COPY OF NOTICES ISSUED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE KERALA REVENUE
RECOVERY RULES ISSUED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT.

K.P.Kurian, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Kurian, v. State of Kerala

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

Othikandy Sasidharan Vs Othiyil Kannan, (Died)

M.v.George Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Omana Vs the Secretary, Kerala Agricultural Debt Relief Commission

Little Flower Generalate(Convent) Vs Sub Collector

Corporation of Cochin, Represented by Its Secretary Vs Vyttila Mobility Hub Society, Represented by Its Managing Director

Nazeer Vs Trikkakara Municipality