SEKHARAN NAIR N. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8257 of 2013 is the 5th respondent in the other captioned writ petition. The writ petitions are materially connected in respect of the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners in the writ petitions for arrears of kisth. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver a common judgment.

(2.) Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8257 of 2013 is the owner in possession of an extent of 75 cents of property comprised in Survey Nos. 82/7A and 82/7B in Kadakarapalli in Cherthala North Village. Petitioner was allegedly working in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board from 1965 till his retirement in the year 1996. According to the petitioner, petitioner's sister late Smt. Ambika Devi was residing very near to the property of the petitioner. Praveen Kumar, son of Ambika Devi was engaged in abkari business along with certain other persons including the 6th respondent in the writ petition viz., K.N. Gireesh. The abkari business run by the said persons failed, consequent to which, the said persons have shifted their residence to Thodupuzha. Smt. Ambika Devi expired on 04.09.200 Her husband Padmanabha Pillai was a retired Circle Inspector of Excise also died on 29.11.200

(3.) According to the petitioner, forging solvency certificate relating to the landed property of the petitioner and by impersonation, petitioner's nephew viz., Praveen Kumar managed to get the abkari business. Petitioner did not know about the malpractice committed by his relatives. However, when property of the petitioner was proceeded with, petitioner has approached this Court by filing O.P. No. 2180 of 1995. As per Ext.P2 interim order, a Division Bench of this Court constituted an investigation team to enquire into the matter, and the investigating officer submitted Ext.P3 report, pointing out that petitioner is innocent and has not executed any document in favour of the Excise Department, and further that the solvency certificate was obtained based on forged documents and somebody impersonated the petitioner and participated in the auction. Anyhow, the original petition was finally dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 17.05.2005. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 enquiry report had not taken into account by the Division Bench.