SASIKALA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER says that by Ext.P4, she purchased 4 cents of property comprised in Sy.No. 683/3 of Nadama Village along with a building therein. According to the petitioner, she has not incurred any liability to be recovered by initiating revenue recovery action either against herself or against the properties owned by her. It is stated that while so, Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act was pasted on the door of her building. Thereupon the petitioner issued Ext.P2 notice to the respondents. Though notice was served, there was no response from them. It is in these circumstances apprehending continuance of the recovery proceedings, she has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P1 and to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner by recovery action. Learned Government Pleader who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that a decree was passed by the company court against the petitioner's son for an amount of Rs. 24,397 together with interest and costs. It is stated that the amount was not paid by the son or other defaulters. On enquiry, it was found that the petitioner's son was residing along with the petitioner in the building in her property and therefore revenue recovery notice addressed to her son was pasted in the building owned by the petitioner where her son is also residing. It is stated that no recovery proceedings are initiated against the petitioner or her assets.

(2.) THUS from the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, it is clear that recovery proceedings in question are directed against the petitioner's son and others and not against her or her assets. Since the facts are as above, there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P1 demand notice or to pass any directions restraining the authorities from continuing the proceedings.