Kerala High Court
A.R.Sivadasan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 February, 2008
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 4454 of 2008(E)
1. A.R.SIVADASAN, AIYINIPILLY HOUSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, KODUNGALLUR.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER
For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.JOHN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :25/02/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.4454 of 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
It is submitted by the petitioner that he was one of the Abkari Contractors of the toddy shops in Kodungallur during the year 1999-2000. For realisation of dues, recovery proceedings were initiated and the property belonging to the petitioner having an extent of 60 cents in survey No.77/9B of Panangadu Village, Kodungallur Taluk was attached. He approached this Court and in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.18226/2003, it was directed that the recovery shall be initiated against the other partners also on an equitable basis.
2. It is stated that thereafter his liability was fixed at 1/5th of the total dues. There upon the petitioner made an application before the Government of Kerala, and he was granted permission to pay the amount due in 20 monthly instalments. It is submitted by the petitioner that while the instalments are being paid, attachment is still continuing. According to him, the attached property is not safeguarded by the respondents. As a result of which the encroachment is WPC4454/2008 2 taking place and the usufructous are also being stolen. In these circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation to return the property and that was rejected by Ext.P6. It is in this background, this writ petition has been filed.
3. The stand of the respondents is that the attachment can be lifted only after the entire liability is liquidated and this cannot be faulted. But then they certainly have the liability to safeguard the attached property from encroachment etc. If that is not done by the respondents, remedial action should be taken.
4. In view of this, I direct that on production of a copy of this judgment, the second respondent shall permit the petitioner to put up fencing on all sides of the property and once fencing is so done by the petitioner, I also direct the second and third respondents that it shall be their responsibility to protect the property by taking such action as is necessary to prevent theft of usufructuous and also damage of the fencing.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE csl