Disputed questions of fact, such as the validity of property attachments and title ownership, cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, and parties should instead approach a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

Dr.A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

As both these Writ Appeals arise from the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.10.2024 in W.P.(C) Nos. 32243 and 34554 of 2023, they are taken up together for consideration and are disposed by this common judgment. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these Writ Appeals are as follows:

The petitioners in the aforementioned Writ Petitions had purchased separate parcels of land from the 5^th and 6^th respondents in W.P.(C) No.34554 of 2023 and from the 6^th respondent in W.P.(C) No.32243 of 2023 by entering into separate sale deeds dated 21.10.2021. When the writ petitioners thereafter approached the Revenue Authorities for mutating the said properties in their names, the request for mutation was refused on the ground that the properties in question were attached at the instance of KSFE Limited. Shortly thereafter, the petitioners were informed of Revenue Recovery notices issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and the steps taken by KSFE for bringing the properties to sale for alleged non-payment of dues to KSFE. It was at that stage that the appellants herein approached the writ court seeking a declaration that the attachment of the properties purchased by them was illegal and for a declaration that there was no attachment or encumbrance over the properties when they purchased them.

2. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, went through the counter affidavits filed by KSFE Limited and the other respondents, but eventually found that there was a disputed question of fact with regard to the ownership of the properties purchased by the appellants. The learned Judge was therefore of the view that an adjudication of the issue projected in the Writ Petitions could not be undertaken in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, relegated the appellants to their remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

3. Although, in the Appeals before us, Sri. B. Pramod, the learned counsel for the appellants, reiterates the submissions made before the learned Single Judge and contends that there was, in fact, no attachment over the properties purchased by the appellants at the time when the sale deeds in their favour were executed by the vendors of the said properties, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, as also the learned Standing Counsel for KSFE, that the attachments were in fact effective and that, when read with the statutory provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the requisition made by KSFE to the Revenue Department for recovery of unpaid arrears would itself operate as a statutory charge on the properties in question. We find therefore that the learned Single Judge was justified in arriving at his conclusion that the issue projected in the Writ Petitions cannot be adjudicated by a writ court. We therefore uphold the said findings of the learned Single judge and dismiss these Writ Appeals by relegating the appellants to their remedies before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

4. Taking note of the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to a possible sale of the properties at the instance of KSFE by invoking the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, we make it clear that any coercive steps designed to bring the disputed properties to sale shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 60 days from today, so as to enable the appellants to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for an adjudication of the issue in the meanwhile.

The Writ Appeals are disposed as above.