1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondents 1 and 2 from proceeding against the petitioner under Sec.44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 [for short, 'the Act, 1968'] and to declare that the property of the petitioner covered by Exts.P1 and P2 cannot be proceeded for realizing the debt of the 3rd respondent. Petitioner also seeks to quash Ext.P9 order dated 15.10.2014, stipulating that, only if an amount of Rs.1,24,512/- on account of the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in E.P.No.119/2012 in O.P.(MV) No.63 of 2007 is paid, the liability will stand discharged, and that the recovery action is maintainable against the property purchased by the petitioner from the 3rd respondent judgment-debtor in the award.

2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

3. Petitioner as per Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds dated 05.07.2011 and 06.07.2011 purchased an extent of 30 cents of property from the 3rd respondent. There were two claim petitions pending against the 3rd respondent before the M.A.C.T., Irinjalakuda, Thrissur District, as O.P. (MV) Nos. 62/2007 and 63/2007. On 17.12.2010, judgments were pronounced in O.P.(MV) No. 62/2007 and O.P. (MV) No. 63/2007, evident from Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings sheet, imposing liability against respondents 3 and 4.

4. Apparently, as per the directions of the M.A.C.T., 4th respondent Insurance company deposited the amount, and filed execution proceedings against the 3rd respondent by virtue of the directions contained in the respective awards, evident from Exts.P5 and P6 proceedings sheet. Thereupon, demand notice under Sec.34 of the Kerala Revenue Act was issued by the 2nd respondent, evident from Ext.P7, and Ext.P8, notice of hearing. On the basis of Ext.P8, petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent and submitted that he is a bonafide purchaser of the property for valuable consideration, that there is no relationship with the 3rd respondent, and that the property was purchased after securing encumbrance certificate of the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2.

5. Thereafter, on 15.10.2014, petitioner received Ext.P9 order, evidently in reply to the objection submitted by the petitioner against the recovery action, stating that unless and until the amounts due towards the awards passed by the M.A.C.T along with interest and cost are not paid, the encumbrance cannot be removed and the recovery action will be proceeded against the property purchased by the petitioner as per Exts.P1 and P2. It is thus seeking to quash the recovery action, this writ petition is filed.

6. Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Other contentions are raised justifying the action initiated by the 2nd respondent under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It is also stated thereunder that, the properties were transferred by the 3rd respondent during the year 2011, whereas the awards were passed by the Tribunal on 17.12.2010. Therefore, the 3rd respondent, who had knowledge with respect to the passage of the awards, has transferred the property with intent to defeat the creditor.

7. I have heard Sri. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Santhosh Peter, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

8. The question to be decided in this writ petition is, whether the property purchased by the petitioner as per Exts.P1 and P2 from the 3rd respondent during the year 2011 can be proceeded with, in order to recover the amounts due under the awards passed by the M.A.C.T during the year 2010, invoking Sec.44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The paramount contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel is based on Sec.44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, dealing with effect of engagements and transfers by the defaulter,