KUNNOTH POOVADAN LAKSHMI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two original petitions relate to proceedings initiated for recovery of arrears of Agricultural Income Tax assessed on Kunhikanaran Vaidyar, now deceased, for four years commencing from 1966 to 1970. Kunhikanaran Vaidyar owned extensive items of immovable properties and had 3 wives and children born to them. Poovadan Suseela is his third wife and the petitioners herein are children born to her, the petitioner in O. P. 6217 of 1981-N being her son and the petitioner in O. P. 6806 of 1981-I being her daughter.

(2.) The point for determination in both the Original Petitions being the same, these Original Petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. It is said that Kunhikanaran Vaidyar died in 1978 and long before his death properties belonging to himself and his wives were partitioned as per registered document No. 275 of 1958 on 17-1-1958 at Sub-Registry Office, Kakkattil. As per this partition deed, properties described in F schedule were set apart to the share of the petitioners and their mother Suseela. The properties owned by Kunhikanaran Vaidyar were assessed under the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 (Act XXII of 1950) for short A.I.T: Act. The tax so assessed in respect of the properties on Kunhikanaran Vaidyar was in arrears. The Revenue Authorities initiated proceedings for the recovery of arrears of agricultural income tax due from deceased Kunhikanaran Vaidyar for the years 1966-'67 to 1969-'70, against the petitioners and their properties. According to the petitioners, in pursuance of such proceedings properties comprised in Sy. No. 9/3 and 18/4 having an extent of 1.34 acres were attached under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the Act. This was challenged by Suseela, the mother of the petitioners, before the Board of Revenue which ultimately passed an order in favour of Suseela holding that S.44 of the Act was not applicable to the case, and that the separate property of Suseela which she got as per the partition karar No. 275 of 1958 of the Sub-Registry Office, Kakkattil, was not liable to be proceeded against for the recovery of arrears of tax due from her husband, the defaulter. On this finding, the revision filed by Suseela was allowed and the Revenue attachment was set aside; but it was made clear that the said order did not in any way preclude the Tahsildar from proceeding against the separate properties held by the defaulter for the recovery of arrears of tax due from him. This order passed by the Board of Revenue has been marked as Ext. P1 in both the cases.

(3.) Thereafter, notice of attachment of immovable properties under S.36 of the Act was issued to the petitioners. Ext. P2 in OP. No. 6217 of 1981-N is this notice. The petitioner in OP. No. 6217 of 1981 then filed a claim petition Ext. P3 before the Tahsildar, Badagara Taluk; while the petitioner in OP. 6806 of 1981-I filed a similar petition Ext. P3 before the Sub Collector, Kozhikode. The claim petition filed by the petitioner in OP. 6217 of 1981 was rejected as per Ext. P4 order; while no order disposing of the claim petition filed by the petitioner in OP. 6806 of 1981 was served on him. Meanwhile, under S.39 of the Act, for the purpose of management, the attached properties along with other items belonging to the petitioners, were entrusted with the Village Officer, Maruthonkara, by Sub Collector, Kozhikode. This order has been marked as Ext. P2 in OP. No. 6806 of 1981 and as Ext. P5 in OP. No. 6217 of 1981.