SATHEESH CHANDRAN NAIR P S Vs. MINI PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does it require a written demand with reference to 'Section 34' of the Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to intercept the conveyance effected after the 'arrear of public revenue due on land' has fallen due by invoking Section 44 of the Act or is it enough, if demand had already been made under Section 7 before effecting the conveyance Does the amount payable to the respondent KSFE constitute any 'arrear of public revenue due on land' merely on notifying the institution under Section 71 of the Act, to attract and invoke Section 44, is another question. Is it open for the 'purchaser' of the property to raise such a contention' with reference to the written demand under Section 34 of the Act, when there is no such case for the 'vendor'/defaulter, who effected the conveyance and is he a 'bonafide purchaser' as proclaimed Can the guarantors raise a contention that deduction from their salary, by virtue of prohibitory orders issued at the instance of the KSFE is not correct, when sufficient assets are available for the defaulter to be proceeded against at the first instance . Whether the KSFE can claim 'priority right' with reference to Section 3 of the Act, for having been notified as an institution under Section 71 of the Act . These are the main points to be considered in these writ petitions. W.P.(C) Nos. 16187 of 2007, 21876 of 2009, 15549 of 2010 and 37390 of 2010 have been filed by the 'guarantors'; while W.P.(C) No. 16852 of 2009 has been filed by the 'purchaser' of the property, which was sought to be intercepted invoking Section 44(2) of the Act; while the defaulter has not filed any case.

(2.) One Mini Panicker, who is the first respondent in W.P. (C) 16187 of 2007 was a subscriber to different 'chitts' floated by the KSFE and had availed various amounts from the branches at Kottayam, Ettumannoor and Alappuzha. For procuring disbursement of the amounts as above, different persons including her husband by name Prathap stood as sureties, agreeing to have the due amount recovered from their salary, in case of default. Undoubtedly, Mini Panicker turned to be a defaulter, under which circumstance, coercive proceedings were taken by the KSFE under the Act, both against the defaulter and the guarantors.

(3.) In the meanwhile, admittedly after service of demand notice under Section 7 of the Act in respect of chitts connected with the 'Kottayam' and 'Ettumannoor' branches and after service of similar demand both under Section 7 and 34 in respect of the branch at 'Alappuzha', Mini Panicker had conveyed some of her properties to one Mr. James Varghese, (the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16852 of 2009) as per Sale Deed dated 03.01.2007 of SRO, Ramapuram. The defaulter Mini Panicker had created mortgage in respect of some other properties to various Banks including Uzhavoor Service Co-operative Bank (Addl. 11th respondent in W.P.(C) No. 16187 of 2007) and the State Bank of India, Kaippuzha Branch in connection with the financial assistance availed therefrom.