Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUDAKSHNA THAMPI, AGED 22 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SUDAKSHNA THAMPI, AGED 22 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS - WP(C) No. 20886 of 2007(J) [2007] RD-KL 12415 (6 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 20886 of 2007(J)

1. SUDAKSHNA THAMPI, AGED 22 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT,

3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR),

4. THESUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND LAND

For Petitioner :SRI.BEPIN VIJAYAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :06/07/2007

O R D E R

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J

W.P.(C) NO. 20886 of 2007

Dated this the 6th day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 notice whereunder the Tahsildar has notified an item of property for sale for recovery of arrears of sales tax amounting to Rs.22,29,775/=. According to the petitioner, the property belongs to her vide Ext.P1 and the petitioner is not an assessee of sales tax. However, it is seen that the document was executed in the year 1988 when the petitioner was a three year old child. It is not known whether transferor was a defaulter making the property liable for recovery proceedings or whether transfer was effected to petitioner after incurring liability. If transfer was effected to defraud revenue, the transaction become void by virtue of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Since a detailed enquiry is called for to decide the petitioner's claim and Sections 29 and 46 of the Revenue W.P.(C)No.20886/2007 :2: Recovery Act provide for settlement of claim, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to conduct an enquiry about the defaulters and their assets and verify whether the transfer of property claimed by the petitioner was made against Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act or section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act. The third respondent will adjudicate the petitioner's claim after hearing the petitioner at the earliest and in case before confirmation of sale of the property. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of the title deed before the third respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,

JUDGE

css / W.P.(C)No.20886/2007 :3: W.P.(C)No.20886/2007 :4:


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.