Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the term "engagement" in section 44(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1969 includes a private sale effected after service of the written demand notice, and whether such sale is void and ineffective against the Government.
Analysis: Section 44(1) was construed in the setting of the revenue recovery scheme, which protects the State's right to realise public dues efficiently and prevents the defaulter from defeating recovery by private alienation after demand notice. The term "engagement" was held to have a wide meaning and to include ordinary transactions of transfer, including sale, mortgage and gift, and not merely informal arrangements. The Court also relied on the legislative background and the structure of section 44 to hold that sub-sections (1) and (2) operate at different stages and are not inconsistent. On that construction, a sale made after service of the demand notice could not bind the Government.
Conclusion: The private sale in favour of the writ petitioners was void as against the Government, and the challenge to the revenue sale failed.
Final Conclusion: The statutory protection of public revenue prevailed over the subsequent private alienation, and the revenue recovery action was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Under section 44(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1969, the word "engagement" includes a private sale or other transfer made after service of the written demand notice, and such alienation is not binding on the Government.