A. O. THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. J. Joe Paul, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. B. Premod, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board and Mr. K. P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader.

(2.) The Original Petitioner / Appellant has approached the learned Single Judge at the stage when a notice is issued under Sec. 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (the Act of 1968). Ext. P2 notice (translation from Malayalam supplied by learned counsel for the Appellant), the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge, reads thus:-

(3.) The main grievance of the Appellant is that the Tahsildar has contemplated under this notice that the transaction itself should be cancelled if sufficient cause is not shown. The contention of the Appellant is that under Sec. 44 of the Act of 1968, cancellation of a document is not contemplated but an attachment of the property.