Judgment :- 1. Revenue Recovery Proceedings initiated for the recovery of Abkari dues, payable by the 4th respondent are sought to be quashed in this Writ Petition. The petitioner is the father-in-law of the 4th respondent. The petitioner claims to have purchased 231/2 cents of land with a building and another 55 1/2 cents of paddy field from the 4th respondent as per document No. 3114 dated 8-10-1972 of the Angamali Sub Registry. The notice of demand in this case was issued on 13-10-1972 and served on the defaulter on 15-11-1972 The question argued before me is that the notice of demand is bad in law and attachment of the properties cannot be effected since transfer took place prior to the notice. 2. A Division Bench of this Court in Gourikutty Amma v. District Collector (1975 KLT. 29) approved the judgment of Eradi, J. in Kunhi AyisiaUmma v. District Collector, Kozhikode and others (ILR. 1974 (2) Kerala 391) which laid down that a notice of demand issued after the transfer is bad in law. It cannot be disputed that Abkari arrears can be collected by recourse to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, for short, the 'Act'. Although the petitioner had questioned the constitutional validity of S.o8 of the Revenue Recovery Act, a decision on that point is not necessary for the disposal of this petition and hence it is not necessary to refer the case to a Bench of five judges under the 42nd Amendment Act. 3. The only question that needs consideration is whether the transfer in favour of the father-in-law is hit by S.44 of the Act. Under S.3 of the Act, "the public revenue due on any land shall be the first charge on that land and the buildings upon it " Normally, the authority can proceed against the property of the defaulter, in the hands of the transferee. But on the principle laid down in the judgments mentioned above, proceedings under the Act against a transferee cannot be taken, where the demand under S.34 itself was after the transfer. Under S.34 the Collector or the authorised officer has to cause a written demand to be served upon the defaulter giving the details about the amounts of arrears etc. S.44 deals with transfers effected by the defaulter after the arrears fell due. Under S.34 the Collector or the authorised officer has to cause a written demand to be served upon the defaulter giving the details about the amounts of arrears etc. S.44 deals with transfers effected by the defaulter after the arrears fell due. Under S.44 (1) any engagement entered into by the defaulter with anyone in respect of any immovable property after the service of the written demand on him shall not be binding upon the Government. In this case the notice of demand was served only after the transfer and therefore S.44 (1) has no application. Under S.44 (2) of the Act, any transfer of immovable property made by a defaulter after public revenue tell is arrears with intent to defeat or delay the recovery of such arrear shall not be binding upon the Government. S.44 (3) provides that if the 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 arrears. S.44 (3) contains an explanation, in which near relatives are categorised. Under this explanation, a father-in-law is not a near relative. That being so, the presumption under S.44 (3) about the fraudulent nature of the transfer cannot be drawn. The total extent of land transferred as per the document is 231/2 cents with a building and 551/2 cents of paddy field in Manjapra Village near-Angamali. The total consideration shown in the document is 4000/-rupres. The counter affidavit has not indicated even remotely what the adequate consideration would be or that the consideration shown in the document is grossly inadequate. Here again, therefore, the presumption under S.44 (3) cannot be drawn. Prima facie it would appear that this transfer which took place a few days before the demand notice was to defeat the Government. S.44 (2), unfortunately does not lay down that a presumption can be drawn in all cases when a defaulter transfers bis property, that it was with intent to defeat or delay the recovery of such arrears. Prima facie it would appear that this transfer which took place a few days before the demand notice was to defeat the Government. S.44 (2), unfortunately does not lay down that a presumption can be drawn in all cases when a defaulter transfers bis property, that it was with intent to defeat or delay the recovery of such arrears. In cases falling under S.44 (2) it is for the Government to establish the fraudulent nature of the transfer by independent proceedings in a civil court, that either the document is a sham one brought into existence to defeat the rightful claims of the Government or that the consideration is grossly inadequate to enrich someone and to defeat the Government. It is really strange that the counter affidavit does not throw any light upon the valuation in the document and the actual value of the property. 4. Chandrasekhara Menon, J. in Thressiamma Kuruvilla v. State (197o KLN.101) had occasion to consider the rase of a transfer in favour of a sister-in-law in O. P. No. 2457 of 1974. The learned judge observed that in such cases, before attachment is effected the transferee will have to be given notice to put forward his or her objections to comply with the principles of natural justice. A sister-in-law is not a near relative under the explanation to S.44 (3). In view of the fact that a father-in-law is not a near relative under S.44 (3), the notice of demand under S.34 of the Act served after the transfer has to be held to be bad. The petitioner on this technical plea is entitled to succeed. 5. Before parting with this case I would like to voice the need for Governmental action through legislation to bring in changes in S.44 (3) of the Act, if found advisable and necessary, to widen the ambit of the expression'near relative' by including also father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and such other relatives who are near in common parlance. I fail to understand the rationale behind the exclusion of this group from 'near relative'. This exclusion often helps the defaulters to escape liability by transferring their properties, sometimes in league with those in charge of initiating proceedings under the Act, at the appropriate time so that the demand notice is issued only after such transfer. The inaction on the part of the authorities in taking timely action also is disturbing. This exclusion often helps the defaulters to escape liability by transferring their properties, sometimes in league with those in charge of initiating proceedings under the Act, at the appropriate time so that the demand notice is issued only after such transfer. The inaction on the part of the authorities in taking timely action also is disturbing. It will, therefore, be appropriate to consider necessary amendments to the Explanation to S.44 (3) in the interest of realisation of Abkari arrears which are due to the Government by recourse of technical pleas. 6. A copy of this judgment under the sea! of the High Court and with the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala. The writ petition is allowed and the revenue recovery proceedings are quashed The allowing of this petition will not however bar the respondents from taking appropriate remedies available to them under law for recovery of the arrears. Parties are directed to bear their costs. Allowed.