S. Siri Jagan, J.

1. The petitioner is the brother’s wife of the 5th respondent. Amounts are due to the Government from the 5th respondent. By Ext.P1 sale deed dated 25.10.2003, the 5th respondent transferred certain properties belonged to him in favour of the petitioner. The said property has been proceeded against under S.44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 for amounts due from the 5th respondent to the Government. That is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The contention is that, S.44 is not applicable to the property in question in so far as the transfer took place before the revenue recovery notice has been issued for recovery of the amounts due. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“i) call for the records leading to the attachment of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed in File No.B2-7/2005 of the Tahsildar, Cherthalla and quash the same to the extent in includes the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed;

ii) issue a writ or mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the 3rd and 4th respondents to exclude the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed from the attachment proceedings effected pursuant to recovery proceedings initiated against the 5th respondent.

iii) to grant stay of all further proceedings for sale of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed in pursuance of the recovery proceedings initiated against the 5th respondent (File No.B2.67/2005-Tahsildar, Cherthallai), pending disposal of the Writ Petition.”

2. Originally a counter affidavit dated 23.10.2008 was filed by the 3rd respondent wherein the detailed dates regarding when the amount became due from the 5th respondent, when notice of demand was issued to him etc., were not stated. When the matter was heard on 19.10.2011, I directed the Government Pleader to see that an additional affidavit is filed stating the entire facts relating to the matter including as to when exactly the amounts became due and detailing other facts in respect of the subject matter. Pursuant thereto, an additional counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it is stated thus:

“2. It is submitted that this additional counter affidavit is necessitated as the petitioner had not impleaded the Block Development Officer, Thyckattusseri in the Writ Petition. Respondent 5, the defaulter is playing behind the curtain. The writ petitioner itself is misconceived. The petitioner herein is the wife of the direct brother of 5th respondent. The 5th respondent entered into an agreement with the Block Development Officer on 16.4.1999 for the construction of a “Samskarika Nilayam” at Perumbalam Grama Panchayath in Thyckattusseri block. The construction was to be done from the fund graciously given by Sri. Vayalar Ravi, M.P. under the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS). Photo copy of the agreement entered into between the 5th respondent with the Block Development Officer, Thyckattusseri dated 16.4.1999 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R3(a). It is categorically stated that the work should be completed before 31.7.1999. Further clause 8 of the Ext.R3(a) reads as follows:

“All sums found due to the Government under or by virtue of the present contract shall be recoverable from the convenor and his properties, movable and immovable, under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in furtherance through the same were arrears of revenue or in any other manner as the Government may deem fit”.

Pursuant to Ext.R3(a) the Block Development Officer, Thyckattusseri released a total amount of `1.75 lakhs on 24.6.1999, 2.8.1999, 12.6.2000 and 24.8.2000 respectively by way of mobilization advance. The contractor/convenor did not complete the work in time. The Block Development Officer has been directing the 5th respondent to complete the work since 31.7.1999. Thereafter the Block Development Officer again sent a notice to the 5th respondent on 18.5.2002. Photocopy of the notice is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit