MATHEW JOSEPH Vs. JOHNY SUNNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the legal representatives of one Baby Mathew who was murdered on 29-03-1989, while in employment under respondents 1 and 2. They preferred a claim before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kottayam for compensation, on account of the death of Baby Mathew against respondents 1 and 2. Eventually, an award was passed the gist of which is produced as Ext. P1, dated 31-03-1997. As per Ext. P1, an amount of Rs. 1,35,569/- was awarded by way of compensation with interest at 12% from 29-03-1989 - the date on which the death happened.

(2.) In the statement filed by the Deputy Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Devikolam, for and on behalf of the District Collector, it is stated that a request from the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation was received by him on 25-06-1998. However the District Collector could not recover the amount from respondents 1 and 2 obviously because the Tahsildar reported that there is no property available to be proceeded with against them. The report of the Tahsildar is produced as Ext. P3. According to the petitioners, the first respondent transferred the immovable properties in his ownership and possession by way of sale in favour of the third respondent on 24-07-1997 and a copy of the sale deed is produced as Ext. P4. Ext. P4 would show that the same had been registered at Devikolam Sub Registrar's Office. In the schedule of the sale deed Ext. P4, description of the properties shown therein would show that the property situated in Devikolam in Idukki District coming within the area of jurisdiction of the District Collector, Idukki. It is contended that the said transfer was effected in favour of the brother inlaw of the first respondents with an intention to defeat or delay the recovery of the amount due to the petitioners. The third respondent is the assignee in whose favour the sale is effected and according to the petitioner, the said transfer is hit by S.44(2) and (3) of the Revenue Recovery Act.

(3.) Though notice was issued none of the party respondents has entered appearance. Originally notice could not be served and paper publication has been effected as per orders passed in I.A. 15838/2002. On behalf of the 4th respondent, a counter statement alone is filed.