BINDU KISHORE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P(C).No.22382/2022 is the appellant. She impugns the order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 11/1/2023 in the said writ petition, as per which, challenge to Ext.P4 order of the second respondent/Tahsildar under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act ['the K.R.R Act', for short] was repelled.

(2.) Heard Sri.V.M.Syam Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Vipindas T.K, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and 5. The fourth respondent, who is none other than husband of the appellant, was not represented before us.

(3.) The first point canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the instant revenue recovery proceedings are illegal and unsustainable, since the same has been initiated in respect of an alleged tax arrears for the period 1991-1992, a time barred debt. He then invited our attention to S.44 of the K.R.R Act to point out that no opportunity has been granted to the appellant before Ext.P4 order was passed. It was also contended that before proceeding under S.44(3), orders from a competent court must be obtained, which requirement is also violated. Non-compliance of the mandatory requirements under S.44 vitiates Ext.P4 order is the submission. It was also submitted that the K.R.R Act cannot be pressed into service for recovery of an amount allegedly due to the Government of Karnataka. At any rate, the petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence as regards the factual parameters to be satisfied before initiating proceedings under S.44(3) is the final submission.