Transfers made to evade tax liabilities can be contested under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, allowing for property attachment regardless of a registered deed.

JUDGMENT

Order dated 17.02.2022 of the Tahsildar ordering the attachment of land measuring 4.04 Ares situated in Sy.No.126/2 of Chendrappinni Village is under challenge on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Petitioner is stated to have received the land aforementioned vide settlement deed dated 10.05.2006 numbered as 1171/2006 registered with Thriprayar SRO from her mother in law who had paid the tax for the land all along, had no encumbrances over it and since then, the property is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. She was flabbergasted to receive a notice dated 20.12.2021 from the Tahsildar, Thaluk Office, Kodungallur, Thrissur, informing that her husband T.S.Kishore - 4th respondent in who’s name the property was before it came to the possession of her mother in law in 1996, had an outstanding liability of Rs.2,08,21,905/- on account of taxes due to the Government of Karnataka arising out his business of arrack in village Mandya, Karnataka District. Reply to the aforementioned show cause notice dated 05.01.202 Ext.P2 was submitted wherein it was stated that she was not a party and was not related to the subject matter, and before registration of the property due diligence was conducted and found that the property had no encumbrance on it, also ever since the registered sale deed was in possession, taxes were being paid by her.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is no compliance of the provisions of sub- section 3 of Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act , 1968 as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner nor the Collector has initiated the action of obtaining an order from the competent court for the purpose of recovering the arrear of public revenue by passing the impugned order. In the absence of attachment of the property at the time of transfer, the property belonging to the petitioner, who may be wife of the 4th respondent, cannot be attached for the recovery of arrears due to the Government from the 4th respondent. The arrears are of the period 1991-92, thus clearly barred as per the provisions of Article 52 of the Limitation Act.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel representing the Tahsildar opposed the aforementioned prayer and submitted that requisition dated 28.11.2014 from the Deputy Commissioner District Mandaya, State of Karnataka was received through District Collector, Thirssur, to realize the amount aforementioned ie., Rs.2,08,21,905/- as abkari dues for the period 1991-1992 due from T.S.Kishore – 4th respondent, husband of the petitioner. Tahsildar issued a notice under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act on 14.09.2015 to the defaulter and came to know that the defaulter is not staying in the place but residing at Banglore. When the defaulter failed to remit the arrears and found no movable and immovable property in Kodungallur Taluk, steps were taken to attach the property transferred by him under Section 44 of the . On enquiry through Village Officer, it was revealed that the defaulter had possessed 0.0404H of land in Sy.No.126/2 of Chendrappinni Village as per the document bearing No.1616/1989 and in the year 1996 vide document bearing No.2479/1996 SRO Thriprayar was transferred to her mother namely Sujatha. The said transaction occurred after the abkari default period 1991-92. In other words, the land originally belonged to the defaulter and in order to escape from the liability, clandestinely transferred the property in favour of the mother and thereafter, the petitioner ie., wife. The whole purpose was to defeat the recovery of dues. The steps under Section 44 are in compliance of the necessary procedure. Petitioner was heard and her request was found to be not satisfactory. Accordingly, impugned order was passed and urged this Court for dismissal of this writ petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

6. It is a matter of record that the 4th respondent the