Back
1995 Supreme(Ker) 237
Judges : B.N.PATNAIK
Janardhana Saralaya - Appellant
Versus
Special Dy.Tahsildar - Respondent
Case No : O.P.No. 1389 of 1990
Decided On : 09/12/1995
Advocates Appeared :
U.P. Kunikullaya For Petitioners Govt. Pleader (V.K. Muhammed Yousuff) For Respondent
P.V.C. pipes used for irrigation are considered implements of husbandry and are exempt from attachment under S.9(d) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.
Headnote:
The petitioners, agriculturists, sought to quash notices for the sale of their P.V.C. pipes and arecanuts under S.12 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The court considered whether the P.V.C. pipes, used for irrigation, were exempt from attachment under S.9(d) of the Act. The court held that the P.V.C. pipes were implements of husbandry and not liable to be attached, while the arecanuts were validly attached and liable to be sold.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, agriculturists, defaulted on loans and their P.V.C. pipes and arecanuts were attached for recovery. They argued that the P.V.C. pipes were essential for irrigation and exempt from attachment under S.9(d) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the P.V.C. pipes were implements of husbandry and not liable to be attached, while the arecanuts were validly attached and liable to be sold. The respondent was directed to dispose of the petitioners' representation.
Issues: The court considered whether the P.V.C. pipes were exempt from attachment under S.9(d) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted 'implements of husbandry' under S.9(d) to include apparatus for irrigation, holding that P.V.C. pipes used for irrigation were exempt from attachment. The court also emphasized that the seized items must be capable of being used as implements of husbandry, regardless of whether they were in actual use at the time of attachment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the original petition in part, directing the respondent to dispose of the petitioners' representation and holding that the P.V.C. pipes were not liable to be attached, while the arecanuts were liable to be sold.
The petitioners, who are agriculturists, pray for a direction to quash Exts. P4 to P8 notices issued under S.12 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, by which the respondent-Tahsildar has notified that the P.V.C. pipes and the arecanuts attached on 31-10-1989 shall be sold in public auction.
2. The petitioners had borrowed loans from the Agricultural Land Development Bank, Hosdurg, to purchase some agricultural equipments. Their only source of livelihood is the income derived from the agricultural operations. They defaulted in the repayment of loan. They intimated the concerned authorities by Exts. P1 to P3 that on account of failure of crops due to vagaries of monsoon and cyclonic weather, they were not in a position to repay the same. But, the respondent-Tahsildar attached the properties and decided to sell them to recover the loan amount.
3. It is contended by the petitioners that the articles sought to be sold as per the notices Exts. P4 to P8 are implements of husbandry and they are essential for the irrigation of their lands. The P.V.C. pipes are used for the purpose of channelising water from the main water pump to the agricultural fields. They are therefore exempted from attachment and sale under S.9(d) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Further, the petitioners filed a petition before the respondent on 9-2-1990 (Ext. P9) to release the same from attachment. But, the respondent did not pass any orders. Hence the petitioners have prayed that the sale notices may be quashed and the respondent may be directed to dispose of Ext. P9 representation.
4. The learned Government Pleader contended that the P.V.C. pipes were not being used for channelising water at the time of attachment. They, were stored in the houses of the petitioners and as such the same cannot be treated as implements of husbandly. It is also contended that the third item of the seized articles being arecanuts are not the implements of husbandry and as such the same may not be directed to be released from attachment.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly conceded that the arecanuts being not implements of husbandry may not be released from attachment and he has no objection to the same being sold in public auction. But, he has strongly urged that the P.V.C. pipes being agricultural implements are not at all liable to be attached.
6. The short point that arises for consideration, therefore, is whether the P.V.C. pipes belonging to the petitioners, who are admittedly agriculturists, can be said to be implements of husbandry and if so whether the attachment of the same is justified.
7. Section 9 of the Act contemplates inter alia that the implements of husbandry shall not be attached. It lays down as follows:
"9. Attachment not to be excessive and certain articles not be attached.- The
attachment shall excessive, that is to say, the property attached shall, as nearly as possible, be proportionate to the amount of the arrear; and it shall not include
(d) implements of husbandry and one-fourth the number of ploughing cattle, subject to a minimum of one pair".
8. The words 'implements of husbandry' mean apparatus, instruments and other implements used for the purposes of farming or cultivation or for agricultural operation. Irrigation of fields is absolutely essential for better cultivation and therefore, it can be said that any implement which is an instrument or an apparatus for channelising the water for irrigating the field is an implement of husbandry.
9. In Kuttiali v. Agrl. Income tax Officer, Ponnani & others (1974 KLT 137) this court observed that a pump set used by an agriculturist for watering his fields would be an "implement of husbandly". Therefore the pump set attached falls under clause (d) of S.9 of the Act and is not therefore, attachable. Similarly, a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Narsingh v. Kamandas (AIR 1980 MP 37) observed thus:
"the attached electric motor pump belon
