JAMEELA BOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the brother's wife of the 5th respondent. Amounts are due to the Government from the 5th respondent. By Ext.P1 sale deed dated 25.10.2003, the 5th respondent transferred certain properties belonged to him in favour of the petitioner. The said property has been proceeded against under S.44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 for amounts due from the 5th respondent to the Government. That is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The contention is that, S.44 is not applicable to the property in question in so far as the transfer took place before the revenue recovery notice has been issued for recovery of the amounts due. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) It is submitted that this additional counter affidavit is necessitated as the petitioner had not impleaded the Block Development Officer, Thyckattusseri in the Writ Petition. Respondent 5, the defaulter is playing behind the curtain. The writ petitioner itself is misconceived. The petitioner herein is the wife of the direct brother of 5th respondent. The 5th respondent entered into an agreement with the Block Development Officer on 16.4.1999 for the construction of a "Samskarika Nilayam" at Perumbalam Grama Panchyath in Thyckattusseri block. The construction was to be done from the fund graciously given by Sri. Vayalar Ravi, M.P. under the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS). Photo copy of the agreement entered into between the 5th respondent with the Block Development Officer, Thyckattusseri dated 16.4.1999 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R3 (a) It is categorically stated that the work should be completed before 31.7.1999. Further clause 8 of the Ext.R3 (a) reads as follows:

(3.) Admittedly Ext.P1 sale deed was executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the petitioner on 28.10.2003 after the receipt of the Ext.R3 (b) notice of demand. The amount fell due and is continuing as due from the year 2001 onwards since in spite of the repeated request the 5th respondent did not completed the work pursuant to Ext.R3 (a) agreement. Even now the work was not completed resulting in the complete wastage of public money. Knowing fully well about the arrears due to the Government, the petitioner did not approach the revenue authorities for transfer of registry of the land allegedly purchased by her by Ext.P1. Even before and after the execution of Ext.P1 5th respondent had transferred his entire properties anticipating revenue recovery action, in favour of his closest relatives. Hence this collusive Writ Petition may be dismissed with compensatory cost to the respondent."