AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shaji P.Chaly, J
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent to stay all further proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance to
Ext. P1 demand notice, including recovery of the amount covered therein.
Apparently, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action initiated by the revenue authorities as per Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery
Act, 1968 ('Act, 1968' for short). In fact, recovery is initiated against the petitioner's son, Vinod N.P., who is impleaded as additional third respondent.
The contention of the petitioner is that Ext. P1 notice was served on the petitioner in her residential address against which the third respondent has no
manner of right.
The sum and substance of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel is that the respondents have no manner of right to recover the amount
due from the third respondent from the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner.
I have heard the learned Government Pleader Sri. Riyal Devassy , and perused the pleadings and materials on record.
It is well settled position in law that a recovery notice cannot be issued against the properties of a third person. This is a case where the petitioner
has a definite contention that the revenue authorities have no manner of right or power to proceed against the properties of the petitioner. In fact, I
find force in the said contention because the revenue authorities have no case that any amount is due from the petitioner to it.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing that if no liability is cast on the petitioner in any revenue proceedings, Ext.P1 notice bearing
No.D4-8351/14 dated 26.06.2014 issued under the Act, 1968 by the second respondent shall not be implemented against the property of the petitioner.
However, I make it clear that the judgment will not stand in the way of the respondents proceedings against the third respondent and recover the
amount in accordance with law.