JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. 1. The writ petitioner seeks to issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 not to recover any amount due as per Exts.P5 to P9 from her. The petitioner has also sought to direct the 5th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P11 objection and till that time, to keep in abeyance Exts.P5 to P9 proceedings. 2. The petitioner contends that she purchased 0.0334 Hectares and 0.0243 Hectares of property in Survey No. 893/9 of Ollurkara Village in Thrissur Taluk, as per Ext.P2 Sale Deed dated 05.08.2010. The said property was purchased from one Rajan Babu and one Joby. The property in question was purchased by the said Rajan Babu and Joby from the 6th respondent, in the year 2009. While the petitioner was holding the property peacefully, Ext.P5 notice was served on the petitioner under Section 44(3) of the Revenue Recovery Act, requiring her to remit an amount of Rs. 7,801/- plus Rs. 1,01,905/- along with interest. It was stated in Ext.P5 that the said amount is due to the Official Liquidator. By Exts.P6 to P9, the Official Liquidator sent requisitions for recovery of amount. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of property without notice of any liability attached to the land in question. In fact, Exts.P12 to P15 Encumbrance certificates do not show any liability to the Official Liquidator. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalised for any alleged default committed by the 6th respondent, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. On receipt of Ext.P5 notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 representation to the Official Liquidator on 14.03.2012. The Official Liquidator has not passed any orders on Ext.P11. The petitioner has also brought these facts to the notice of the 3rd respondent, as per Ext.P10. In spite of Exts.P10 and P11, the respondents were proceeding with the coercive action. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner filed the writ petition. 4. When this writ petition came up for admission on 03.04.2012, this Court passed an interim stay for a period of three months. The said interim stay was extended from time to time and finally, until further orders. Though notice was served, neither the 5th respondent nor the 6th respondent has filed counter affidavit in the writ petition. However, the 3rd respondent opposed the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The said interim stay was extended from time to time and finally, until further orders. Though notice was served, neither the 5th respondent nor the 6th respondent has filed counter affidavit in the writ petition. However, the 3rd respondent opposed the writ petition filing counter affidavit. According to the 4th respondent, the property in question was sold by the 6th respondent to one Rajan Babu during the arrear period and in view of Section 44(3) of the Revenue Recovery Act, this transfer of property will not be binding on the Government. The arguments of the petitioner against attaching the property are unsustainable. The petitioner's objections are not valid either. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4. 6. From the pleadings, it is evident that the petitioner had purchased the property as per Ext.P2 sale deed on 05.08.2010. Much prior to that date, the 6th respondent had sold the property to one Rajan Babu, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. Going by Exts.P6 to P9 requisitions made by the Official Liquidator, it is seen that such requisitions were made subsequent to the year 2009 after the 6th respondent sold the property to the said Rajan Babu. In fact, Exts.P7 to P9 are made subsequent to Ext.P2 Sale Deed by which the petitioner purchased the property. Exts.P12 to P15 Encumbrance certificates would also reveal that the alleged arrears in question were not reflected in the Revenue records. 7. Going by these documents, there is prima-facie evidence to show that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the property without notice of any liability to the Official Liquidator attached to the land in question. In such circumstances, it will be harsh to proceed against the petitioner if the 5th respondent-Official Liquidator does not consider the objections made by the petitioner in Ext.P11. 8. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 5th respondent-Official Liquidator to consider the objections of the petitioner as reflected in Ext.P11 with notice to the petitioner. The Official Liquidator shall take a decision on Ext.P11 after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Till the Official Liquidator takes a decision as directed above, the benefits of interim stay passed by this Court on 03.04.2012 will continue to enure to the benefit of the petitioner.