Judgment :- 1. This appeal was heard and allowed by our judgment in Gourikutty Amma v. District Collector, Alleppey reported in 1974 KLT 103. The view that we took in the judgment was that S.44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 for short, the Act, was not, attracted,, We allowed the review application (Review Petition 25 of 1974) and set aside the judgment today because we had not considered the effect of S.68(4) of the Act read with the third paragraph of sub-s. (1) of that section and in the light of S.28 of the Abkari Act, 1077 (Act 1 of 1077). 2. We have heard the appeal afresh. The question that arose for determination was whether the amounts made recoverable as if those amounts represented arrears of land revenue by virtue of S.28 of the Abkari Act, 1077 can be recovered in the manner provided by S.44 of the Act by attaching properties that have, been transferred by the defaulter after the issue of notice contemplated by that section by drawing the presumption that the transfer was intended to defeat the creditors. Before we extract the section it is necessary to state a few facts. 3. The appellants before us are the wife and daughter of a person from whom admittedly amounts were due under the Abkari Act 1 of 1077. Notice was issued to him for recovery of those amounts. After the issue of such notice the defaulter transferred the properties that have been attached to the appellants. The appellants in the original petition sought a cancellation of the attachment on the ground that the properties had become theirs before the attachment was effected and the properties could not therefore be attached for amounts due from the defaulter. The learned judge who heard the original petition dismissed the original petition in view of the provision in S.44 of the Act. In appeal we took the view that S.44 is not attracted because the amount due from the defaulter was not public revenue due on land or land revenue. The view we took requires reconsideration in the light of the specific provisions in S.28 of the Abkari Act and S.68 (1) and (4) read with S.44 of the Act. We shall extract S.28 of the Abkari Act, 1077. "28. Recovery of duties. The view we took requires reconsideration in the light of the specific provisions in S.28 of the Abkari Act and S.68 (1) and (4) read with S.44 of the Act. We shall extract S.28 of the Abkari Act, 1077. "28. Recovery of duties. All duties, taxes, fines and fees payable to the Government direct under any of the foregoing provisions of this Act or of any license or permit issued under it, and all amounts due to the Government by any grantee of a privilege or by any farmer under this Act or by any person on account of any contract relating to the Abkari Revenue may be recovered from the person primarily liable to pay the same or from his surety (if any) and if they were arrears of Land Revenue, and, in case of default made by a grantee of a privilege or by a farmer, the Commissioner may take grantor farm under management at the risk of the defaulter or may declare the grant or farm forfeited, and resell it at the risk and loss of the defaulter. When a grant or farm is under management under this section, the Commissioner may recover any moneys due to the defaulter by any lessee or assignee as if they were arrears of land Revenue." 4. The relevant paragraph of S.68 (1) is in these terms: "all sums declared by any other law for the time being in force to be recoverable as arrear of public revenue due on land or land revenue;" 5. S.68 (4) of the Act runs thus: "68(4) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the provisions of S.44 and 60 shall apply in the case of recovery of any sum under the provisions of this section." 6. The amounts due under the Abkari Act are recoverable as if they are arrears of land revenue. This is clear from S.28 of the Abkari Act which we have just read. Such arrears will become moneys due under S.68(1) of the Act because of the provision in the third paragraph of Sub-section (1) of S.68. All such moneys are recoverable by applying S.44 also is clear from sub-section (4) of S.68. in view of these provisions we have to take the view that the amounts claimed are really public revenue due on land or land revenue. We hold so. 7. All such moneys are recoverable by applying S.44 also is clear from sub-section (4) of S.68. in view of these provisions we have to take the view that the amounts claimed are really public revenue due on land or land revenue. We hold so. 7. Our attention has been invited by counsel appearing for the appellants to the decision of this Court in Tahsildar Changanacherry & Others v. N. A. Thomas and Others (1969 KLT 878). The question that arose for consideration therein was whether S.36A of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951 was applicable for the purpose of recovering amounts for which provision is made under S.30 of the Travancore-Cochin State Aid to Industries Act, 1952. This court held that S.36A of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1951 will apply only to cases where land had been sold for arrear of public revenue due on land. No question about the applicability of a provision similar to S.44 or the Act read with S.68 (1) and 68 (4) of the Act arose for consideration. We think this decision is inapplicable to the facts of the case before us and is not of any help in deciding the issue. Our attention has also been drawn to the decision of this Court in Kunhi Ayisia Umma v. District Collector, Kozhikode and others (ILR.1974 (2) Kerala 391). The learned judge followed the decision in this appeal in Gourikutty Amma v. District Collector Alleppey (1974 KLT 103). The conclusion reached by the judgment is supportable on the basis that the issue of notice in the case dealt with by the learned judge was after the transfer. By virtue of this fact S.44 cannot be attracted at all. This decision cannot help the appellants. In the light of the above discussion we have to hold as we have indicated that in the case of arrears of dues under the Abkari Act by virtue of S, 28 of the Abkari Act read with Sub-sections (1) and (4) of S.68 of the Revenue Recovery Act, S.44 of that Act is attracted. 8. Finally counsel for the appellants contended that this was a clear case in which even the provisions of S.44 had not been followed. We shall read S.44 of the Act in its entirety. "44. Effect of engagements and transfers by the defaulter. 8. Finally counsel for the appellants contended that this was a clear case in which even the provisions of S.44 had not been followed. We shall read S.44 of the Act in its entirety. "44. Effect of engagements and transfers by the defaulter. (1) Any engagement entered into by the defaulter with any one in respect of any immovable property after the service of the written demand on him shall not be binding upon the Government. (2) Any transfer of immovable property made by a defaulter after public revenue due on any land from him has fallen in arrear, with intent to defeat or delay the recovery of such arrear, shall not be binding upon the Government." (3) Where a defaulter transfers immovable property to a near relative or for grossly inadequate consideration after public revenue due on any land from him has fallen in arrear, it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved, that such transfer is made with intent to defeat or delay the recovery of such arrear, and the, Collector or the authorised Officer may, subject to the orders of a competent court, proceed to recover such arrear of public revenue by attachment and sale of the property so transferred, as if such transfer had not taken place: Provided that, before proceeding to attach such property, the Collector or the authorised officer shall (i) give the defaulter an opportunity of being heard; and (ii) record his reasons therefor in writing. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section: "near relative" includes husband, wife father; mother, brother, sister, son; daughter, step-son, step-daughter, uncle, aunt, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, nephew or niece of the transferor." 9. S.44 contains a somewhat extraordinary provision, as the section by a legal fiction treats transfers in certain circumstances as those made for defeating creditors. The section however introduces also certain safeguards and that is contained in the proviso to sub-section (3) of S.44. Before attachment is effected on the property transferred it is necessary to issue a notice to the defaulter. This notice must necessarily be for the purpose of showing cause against deciding the presumption embodied in sub-section (3) of S.44. We think a provision should also have been made for the issue of a similar notice to the transferee. Sub-section (3) contemplates transfers not only to relatives but also to strangers for inadequate consideration. This notice must necessarily be for the purpose of showing cause against deciding the presumption embodied in sub-section (3) of S.44. We think a provision should also have been made for the issue of a similar notice to the transferee. Sub-section (3) contemplates transfers not only to relatives but also to strangers for inadequate consideration. Even in the case of near relatives we do not see why such relatives who have become the owners of the property should be kept in the dark, before the somewhat extraordinary provision is brought into operation and their properties attached. Perhaps the legislature will do well to make a specific provision for the issue of notice to the transferees also. We would like to add that the absence of such a notice can possibly be interpreted as non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and the attachments effected without such notice may turn out to be ineffective. Whatever that be, the records of the case do riot indicate that notice was even issued to the defaulter as contemplated by the proviso to sub-section (3) of S.44 to show cause why the properties though transferred by him should not be attached after such transfer. So While reversing our view taken on the former occasion we come to the same conclusion that the attachment effected must be set aside. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the attachment effected on the properties of the appellants for recovery of the amounts due from the husband of the first appellant and the father of the second appellant for moneys due from him. We reserve the right of the authorities to proceed against those properties after complying with the provisions of S.44 of the Act and in fairness after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to show cause why their properties should not be proceeded against. This appeal is disposed of on the above terms. We direct the parties to bear their respective casts. 10. A copy of this judgment will be sent to the Chief Secretary to the - Government and a copy will also be sent to the Advocate General for information regarding what we have stated in Para.9 above.