RAMAN KANNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE Recovery Proceedings initiated for the recovery of Abkari dues, payable by the 4th respondent are sought to be quashed in this Writ Petition. The petitioner is the father-in-law of the 4th respondent. The petitioner claims to have purchased 231/2 cents of land with a building and another 55 1/2 cents of paddy field from the 4th respondent as per document No. 3114 dated 8-10-1972 of the Angamali Sub Registry. The notice of demand in this case was issued on 13-10-1972 and served on the defaulter on 15-11-1972 The question argued before me is that the notice of demand is bad in law and attachment of the properties cannot be effected since transfer took place prior to the notice.

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court in Gourikutty Amma v. District Collector (1975 KLT. 29) approved the judgment of Eradi, J. in Kunhi ayisiaumma v. District Collector, Kozhikode and others (ILR. 1974 (2) Kerala 391) which laid down that a notice of demand issued after the transfer is bad in law. It cannot be disputed that Abkari arrears can be collected by recourse to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, for short, the 'act'. Although the petitioner had questioned the constitutional validity of S. o8 of the revenue Recovery Act, a decision on that point is not necessary for the disposal of this petition and hence it is not necessary to refer the case to a bench of five judges under the 42nd Amendment Act.

(3.) CHANDRASEKHARA Menon, J. in Thressiamma Kuruvilla v. State (197o KLN. 101) had occasion to consider the rase of a transfer in favour of a sister-in-law in O. P. No. 2457 of 1974. The learned judge observed that in such cases, before attachment is effected the transferee will have to be given notice to put forward his or her objections to comply with the principles of natural justice. A sister-in-law is not a near relative under the explanation to S. 44 (3 ). In view of the fact that a father-in-law is not a near relative under S. 44 (3), the notice of demand under S. 34 of the Act served after the transfer has to be held to be bad. The petitioner on this technical plea is entitled to succeed.