SUMA WILSON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner seeks to issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 not to recover any amount due as per Exts.P5 to P9 from her. The petitioner has also sought to direct the 5th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P11 objection and till that time, to keep in abeyance Exts.P5 to P9 proceedings.

(2.) The petitioner contends that she purchased 0.0334 Hectares and 0.0243 Hectares of property in Survey No.893/9 of Ollurkara Village in Thrissur Taluk, as per Ext.P2 Sale Deed dated 05.08.2010. The said property was purchased from one Rajan Babu and one Joby. The property in question was purchased by the said Rajan Babu and Joby from the 6th respondent, in the year 2009. While the petitioner was holding the property peacefully, Ext.P5 notice was served on the petitioner under Section 44(3) of the Revenue Recovery Act, requiring her to remit an amount of ‚¹7,801/- plus ‚¹1,01,905/- along with interest. It was stated in Ext.P5 that the said amount is due to the Official Liquidator. By Exts.P6 to P9, the Official Liquidator sent requisitions for recovery of amount.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of property without notice of any liability attached to the land in question. In fact, Exts.P12 to P15 Encumbrance certificates do not show any liability to the Official Liquidator. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalised for any alleged default committed by the 6th respondent, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. On receipt of Ext.P5 notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 representation to the Official Liquidator on 14.03.2012. The Official Liquidator has not passed any orders on Ext.P11. The petitioner has also brought these facts to the notice of the 3rd respondent, as per Ext.P10. In spite of Exts.P10 and P11, the respondents were proceeding with the coercive action. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner filed the writ petition.