JAMES VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the property belonging to him which was purchased from the 9th respondent as per Ext.P1 Sale Deed dated 03.01.2007, is sought to be proceeded against on the basis of the coercive steps taken under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, at the instance of the KSFE Ltd. to whom the 9th respondent actually owned some amounts, which was not known to the petitioner when he purchased the property as per Ext.P1.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that, he is a 'bonafide purchaser' and no proceedings were pending under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act when Ext.P1 Sale Deed was executed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further asserts that, proper demand under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act is a mandatory requirement to attract Section 44. The petitioner has placed reliance on Ext.P4 as well as Ext.P9 to assert the submissions in this regard. Ext.P9 which was originally produced along with the Writ Petition was subsequently sought to be substituted as per Annexure A1 which was produced along with I.A.7454/2009 and the prayer was allowed by this Court as per order dated 30.06.2009. Respondents 4 to 9 have filed counter affidavit pointing out the actual facts and figures and also giving the details of the demand notices issued in respect of the different transactions as given in paragraph 7, which shows that such notices were issued prior to the date of Ext.P1 Sale Deed. Pointing out that the above notices issued under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act are very much sufficient to attract Section 44 (1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the respondents also submit that, the sureties had already approached this Court by filing WP(C) 16187/2007 when steps were taken against them; wherein the present petitioner was impleaded as an additional respondent and that the said matter is still pending. 2. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the legal issue stands already covered against the petitioner as per the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Tahsildar Vs. Vasu [2006(4) KLT 557]. Learned Counsel further submits that the relief sought for by the petitioner in the said circumstance is confined to grant some breathing time to clear the entire liability and save his properties, particularly being a stranger to the transaction between the 9th respondent and the KSFE Ltd.