High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-07-29Two petitions disposed: WP(C).No.35005 of 2011 ...

Pushpalatha v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 35005 of 2011 (A)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2015-07-29
Court Decision / Holding: WP(C).No.35005 of 2011: Dismissed. WP(C).No.6198 of 2012: Allowed with directions to implement the revenue recovery, including appearance before the Industrial Tribunal, determination of the award amounts as on 31.08.2015, seven monthly installments, deposit deadlines, and suspension of revenue recovery during installment period; attachment to be lifted upon satisfaction of the installments; post-satisfaction, future interest to be determined and paid as the 8th installment.
Final Disposition: Two petitions disposed: WP(C).No.35005 of 2011 dismissed; WP(C).No.6198 of 2012 allowed with specific implementation directions and installment plan for revenue recovery.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Pushpalatha, W/o Narayananunni, Vadakkeppatt House, Thiruvegappura P.O., Ottappalam, Palakkad District

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 023
The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 023
The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ottapalam - 679 101
The Village Officer, Thiruvegappura Village Office, Ottapalam - 679 101
Sankaranarayanan, S/o. Ravunni Nair, Pachery House, Thiruvegappura Post, Ottapalam Palakkad District - 679 304
ADDL.R6 Kozhikkottill Unnikrishnan S/o Kozhikkottill Raman, Kozhikkottill Veedu Puramannur P.O., Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Koshy George

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Manoj P. Kunjachan
• Sri. K. M. Jamaludheen
• Sri. Jamsheed Hafiz

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C).No.35005 of 2011), taken with WP(C).No.6198 of 2012, concerns a post-employment-liability recovery under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The admitted facts disclose that the employee Janaki died in 1998 due to an employment injury. An award in favor of the employee’s legal heirs was made in 2006 for Rs.1,63,070 with 12% interest from the date of accident. Sankaranarayanan, the employer, transferred two properties to his daughter-in-law (the petitioner in 35005/2011) after the employee’s death, arguing bona fide purchase of the properties. The core issue is whether the revenue recovery proceedings can be pressed against the daughter-in-law, despite her title, where the tax-like statutory charge under Section 14A attaches to the employer’s assets for liabilities arising before the transfer. The court reiterates that Section 14A creates a statutory charge from the accrual date of the liability, which, under case law (K. Sreedharan v. Thajudeen Koya; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha), relates back to the date of injury. Consequently, the challenged transfers post-date death are subject to the statutory charge, and WP( C).35005/2011 is dismissed. WP( C).6198/2012 is allowed, with directions for implementing revenue recovery via Industrial Tribunal proceedings, installment payments, and a staged release of attachment once amounts are deposited. The judgment directs appearance before the Industrial Tribunal and outlines a timetable for deposits and final settlement.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 14A of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923Section 83(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bonafide purchaser doctrine
Statutory charge under Section 14A begins from accrual of liability (date of injury)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the two properties conveyed to her after the employee’s death were bona fide purchases for valuable consideration paid to the father-in-law. Since the transfers occurred post-death, they should not be subjected to the statutory charge under Section 14A; the petitioner seeks protection against attachment and recovery, arguing against retroactive implications of the liability.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that Section 14A creates a statutory charge on the employer’s assets for liabilities accruing before transfer; the liability attaches from the date of injury and can reach assets transferred posthumously if they arise from the same injury, as supported by precedents. Therefore, the post-death transfers to the daughter-in-law are subject to the charge and recovery can proceed.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
K.Sreedharan v. Thajudeen Koya	1996 (1) KLJ 246	Positive	Cited to establish that Section 14A’s statutory charge starts from liability accrual, relating back to the date of injury.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha	2007 (4) KLT 386	Positive	Cited to reinforce the rule that the statutory charge under Section 14A commences from accrual and can cover post-death transfers if related to the injury liability.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Pushpalatha v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2015/7TH SRAVANA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No. 35005 of 2011 (A)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** **---------------------** **PUSHPALATHA, W/O.NARAYANANUNNI, VADAKKEPPATT HOUSE THIRUVEGAPPURA P.O., OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** **----------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.** **2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.** **3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM - 679 101.** **4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVEGAPPURA VILLAGE OFFICE,** **OTTAPALAM - 679 101.** **5. SANKARANARAYANAN, S/O.RAVUNNI NAIR, PACHERY HOUSE,** **THIRUVEGAPPURA POST, OTTAPALAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 679 304** **...2/-** **WP(C).No. 35005 of 2011 (A) -2-** ***ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED** **---------------------------------** ***ADDL.R6. KOZHIKKOTTIL UNNIKRISHNAN** **S/O.KOZHIKKOTTIL RAMAN, KOZHIKKOTTIL VEEDU PURAMANNUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ***IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11/8/14 IN IA NO. 10581/14.** **R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN R5 BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN** **SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN ADDL. R6 BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-07-2015, ALONG WITH WPC. 6198/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...3/-** **WP(C).No. 35005 of 2011 (A)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :** **--------------------------------------** **EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DT.18.10.2004 ISSUED BY SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, VILAYUR.** **EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVEGAPPURA DT. 8.5.2002.** **EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.14.10.2009 TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT.27.10.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 27.2.2010.** - **EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 27.2.2010.** - **EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C).NO.9480/10 DT. 22.3.2010.** - **EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 29.9.2010.** - **EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION U/S 83(2) OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 27.2.2011.** - **EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 27.8.2011.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** **--------------------------------------------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## K. Vinod Chandran, J ------------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C).Nos.35005 of 2011-A & 6198 of 2012-Y -----------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of July, 2015 ## **JUDGMENT** Both the writ petitions are with respect to the identical issue. W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 challenges the revenue recovery proceedings initiated, while W.P.(C).No.6198 of 2012 seeks implementation of the said proceedings. 2. W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 is taken as the leading case and the parties and documents are referred to as stated in the said writ petition. The admitted facts are that, one Janaki died out of an employment injury while employed with one Sankaranarayanan. Sankaranarayanan's daughter-in-law is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011, who seeks to avoid the distress created on the property, which she got conveyed from Sankaranarayanan. The additional 6[th] respondent in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.6198 of 2012, is the son of the deceased Janaki, one of the claimants before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner. WP(C).Nos.35005 of 2011 & - 2 - 6198 of 2012 3. The death occurred on 22.02.1998. The son of the deceased, along with other legal heirs, approached the Employee's Compensation Commissioner for compensation and an award dated 19.06.2006 was passed determining an amount of Rs.1,63,070/- [Rupees one lakh, sixty three thousand and seventy only] with 12% interest from the date of accident, as the compensation. Though the award is not produced in both the writ petitions, it is an admitted fact that it has become final. The issue to be considered is whether the recovery proceedings can be proceeded against the daughter-in-law of the employer, who claims to be a _bonafide_ purchaser of two properties from the employer. 4. Sankaranarayanan transferred two items of property to his daughter-in-law by deed Nos.1456/99 and 1386/06, both of Sub Registrar's Office, Vilayur, dated respectively 22.07.1999 and 10.07.2006; both after the death of Janaki. The daughter-in-law contends that the said purchases were _bonafide_ purchases, for consideration paid to the father-in-law and merely because the vendee is a close relative of the vendor, there can be no distress created on the property. WP(C).Nos.35005 of 2011 & - 3 - 6198 of 2012 5. Section 14A of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [for brevity “the Act”] creates a statutory charge on the assets of an employer on the liability accrued before the date of the transfer. This Court in _**K.Sreedharan v. Thajudeen Koya**_ **[1996 (1) KLJ 246]** and _**National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha**_ **[2007 (4) KLT 386]** found that the statutory charge would start from the accrual of the liability which could be related back to the date of injury. Hence, both the transactions, that occurred after the death of the employee, would be subject to the statutory charge created by Section 14A of the Act. In such circumstance, W.P.(C). No.35005 of 2011 would stand dismissed. 6. W.P.(C).No.6198 of 2012 is allowed, directing implementation of the revenue recovery proceedings. However, in the context that the writ petitions pending for long before this Court, the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 or her representative and if necessary the employer, and the representative of the legal heir shall appear before the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad on 20.08.2015 and produce a copy of the award. The Industrial Tribunal shall determine the amounts payable as per the award as on 31.08.2015. WP(C).Nos.35005 of 2011 & - 4 - 6198 of 2012 The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 or the employer shall be granted seven monthly instalments to satisfy the entire dues as determined by the Industrial Tribunal. The said amount shall be deposited on or before 10[th] of each succeeding month, commencing from 10.09.2015, before the Industrial Tribunal. On deposit of each such instalment, the same shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased. On satisfaction of the entire amounts, the Tribunal shall determine the future interest due from 31.08.2015 and the same shall be paid as the 8[th] instalment, on the next succeeding month. On satisfaction of the entire amounts, the same shall be recorded and proceedings finalised. The revenue recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance during the period of the instalments directed hereinabove. If any two consecutive defaults are committed by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 or the employer, the proceedings will revive and continue against the properties also. It is made clear that the daughter-in-law of the employer can be proceeded only against the properties which have been conveyed to her by the employer - her father-in-law. On satisfaction being recorded by the Tribunal, necessarily the WP(C).Nos.35005 of 2011 & - 5 - 6198 of 2012 petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 would be entitled to appear before the revenue recovery authorities, so as to seek lifting of the attachment of the properties. Ordered accordingly. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs. **Sd/-** K.Vinod Chandran Judge. vku/- [ true copy ]