Kerala High Court
N.Babu @ Dasayyan vs The District Collector on 5 April, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 12886 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
N.BABU @ DASAYYAN
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O NALLA THAMBI NADAR,
THUDAKKODE NADAKKILKARA PUTHENVEEDU,
KILIYOOR, VELLARADA P.O., 695 505, NOW
RESIDING AT PUTHENVILA, KEEZHAROOR,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695124
BY ADV.
SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDING,
CIVIL STATION ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695043
2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR)
REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE,
NEYYATTINKARA, PIN - 695121
3 THE NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY
NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695121
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.
4 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, FOREST
HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THYCAUD P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
5 MARIYA THOMAS
VELANKANNY SAW MILLS, OLATHANI,
NEYYATTINKARA., PIN - 695121
6 SAHAYA SURESH
S/O MARIYA THOMAS, VELANKANNY BHAVAN,
OLATHANI, NEYYATTINKARA, PIN - 695121
BY ADVS.
SRI.GOPAN R
SRI.R.T.PRADEEP - SC
SRI.T.P.SAJAN - SPL.GP
W.P.(C) No.12886 of 2024
:2:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.12886 of 2024
:3:
JUDGMENT
The limited plea of the petitioner is that, respondents 1 and
2 be directed to proceed with and continue revenue recovery
action against respondents 5 and 6 for recovery of the amounts
quantified in Ext.P1 Award.
2. Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal - learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that, respondents 5 and 6 are acting in
collaboration, being mother and son, and that they are
attempting to frustrate the Revenue Recovery action based on
Ext.P1, merely saying that the establishment has been
transferred by the former to the latter. He argued that, when
such transfer is done after Ext.P1 Award and after the initiation
of Revenue Recovery action, it would be of no consequence at
all; and that the official respondents are obligated to continue
with the same and culminate it as per law, without any avoidable
delay.
3. Sri.R.Govind - learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.6, submitted that his client purchased the property and not
the establishment and, therefore, that the recovery based on
Ext.P1 cannot be initiated or continued against him. He prayed
that, therefore, this writ petition against his client be dismissed.
4. Sri.R.T.Pradeep - learned Standing Counsel appearing
for respondent No.3 - Neyyattinkara Municipality, submitted
that the controversy is between the petitioner and the party
respondents and therefore, that his client has no comment to
make at this stage.
5. Sri.T.P.Sajan - learned Special Government Pleader for
respondents 1 and 2, submitted that the apprehensions of the
petitioner are completely devoid of merit and that necessary
action under the Revenue Recovery Act is being followed
against respondent No.5, for recovery of amounts as per Ext.P1
Award. He submitted that, such action has not been stopped
merely because there is a claim by the 6 th respondent that he
has purchased the property and that this itself will be an issue
that will be considered by the competent Authority, while
proceedings are taken forward.
6. I must say that the afore stand of the official
respondents is the best available in the given circumstances,
because the question whether there has been a transfer of the
establishment from the 5th respondent to the 6th respondent, or
otherwise, are not issues that this Court can consider at the first
instance.
7. In any event, the argument of the petitioner that, after
Ext.P1 Award, any such transfer cannot be used against his
client's interests, is also one that the competent Authorities
must consider in its proper perspective.
Resultantly, I allow this Writ Petition, directing respondents
1 and 2 to hear the parties and continue with further recovery
action; thus culminating in appropriate orders and necessary
proceedings, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
I, however, clarify that, none of the contentions of the rival
parties have been looked into on its merits and that they are all
left open to be impelled before respondents 1 and 2, when the
afore exercise is completed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
anm
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12886/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GIST OF ORDER DATED 05-
06-2008 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 24 ISSUED BY THE
REQUISITION AUTHORITY TO THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR DATED 04-11-2009
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
FROM THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER OF THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28-01-
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.R.1295/18 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 21-
02-2023 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO
PRODUCE THE ADDRESS OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
AT TAMILNADU
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 01-07-2023
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 19-07-2023
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 01-07-2023
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE
CHIEF MINISTER DATED 01-07-2023
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11-03-2024 BEFORE
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.
