BINDU KISHORE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dtd. 17/2/2022 of the Tahsildar ordering the attachment of land measuring 4.04 Ares situated in Sy.No.126/2 of Chendrappinni Village is under challenge on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner is stated to have received the land aforementioned vide settlement deed dtd. 10/5/2006 numbered as 1171/2006 registered with Thriprayar SRO from her mother in law who had paid the tax for the land all along, had no encumbrances over it and since then, the property is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. She was flabbergasted to receive a notice dtd. 20/12/2021 from the Tahsildar, Thaluk Office, Kodungallur, Thrissur, informing that her husband T.S.Kishore - 4th respondent in who's name the property was before it came to the possession of her mother in law in 1996, had an outstanding liability of Rs.2,08,21,905.00 on account of taxes due to the Government of Karnataka arising out his business of arrack in village Mandya, Karnataka District. Reply to the aforementioned show cause notice dtd. 5/1/202 Ext.P2 was submitted wherein it was stated that she was not a party and was not related to the subject matter, and before registration of the property due diligence was conducted and found that the property had no encumbrance on it, also ever since the registered sale deed was in possession, taxes were being paid by her.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is no compliance of the provisions of sub- Sec. 3 of Sec. 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner nor the Collector has initiated the action of obtaining an order from the competent court for the purpose of recovering the arrear of public revenue by passing the impugned order. In the absence of attachment of the property at the time of transfer, the property belonging to the petitioner, who may be wife of the 4threspondent, cannot be attached for the recovery of arrears due to the Government from the 4threspondent. The arrears are of the period 1991-92, thus clearly barred as per the provisions of Article 52 of the Limitation Act.