Eruvankayi Pradeep vs District Collector, Kannur District, P.O. Kannur., Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Thalassery, P.O. Thalassery And Village Officer, Kandam Kunnu Village, P.O. Nirmalagiri, Thalassery Taluk

Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon

The Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:-

i). issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to proceed against the properties, both movable and immovable, in the direct possession of the defaulter namely Sibi Joseph, including the movable kept in his shop namely M/s. Mary Matha Tiles Centre (KCP XIII-414 A(5)) Irritty before proceeding against the property purchased by the petitioner.

ii). to issue writ of certiorari or such other writ or direction quashing Ext. P6 as illegal, unsustainable and premature

iii). issue a writ or direction prohibiting the respondents from proceeding against the property purchased by the petitioner until all the properties in the possession of the defaulter and the properties sold by him after the execution of Ext. P1 is attached and sold for the recovery of the dues.

(iv). granting such other writ or direction this Hon''ble Court deem fit in the circumstance of the case

When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 17.08.2007 the following interim order was passed:

Government Pleader takes notice for respondents. In view of the specific claim by the petitioner that the defaulter, namely Shri. Sibi Joseph, has assets in the form of shop building and other lands, there will be direction to the 2nd respondent to proceed for recovery against the assets of the defaulter on petitioner furnishing details of such properties of the defaulter to the 2nd respondent. Recovery should be commenced against the defaulter immediately an production of this order by the petitioner. Second respondent is also directed to conduct an enquiry and file a report about defaulter''s other properties. In fact, the property purchased by the petitioner itself is through an exchange and if other property is available with the defaulter, 2nd respondent should sell such property first and file a report in this court. There will be stay against sale of property purchased by the petitioner from the defaulter for a period of one month from today.

Subsequently, on filing I.A. NO. 11669/2007, this Court considered the prayer therein and it was ordered on 23.08.2007 as follows:-

Since petitioner submitted that the defaulter namely, Siby Joseph is running business in rented premises, the interim order dated 17.08.2007 is corrected and modified with direction to the recovery authority to proceed for attachment of movables particularly, stock and other movables in the shop and also proceed against the land belonging to the defaulter in terms of the said interim order.

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the revenue authorities had proceeded against the assets of the defaulter and the due amount was recovered to a substantial extent and the balance was satisfied by the defaulter by availing the benefit of ''Amnesty Scheme'' declared in the meanwhile. This being the position, nothing remains to be considered in this writ petition. In the said circumstances, writ petition is closed, recording the submission as above.