JUDGMENT : MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the wife of Sri. Joy J. Moyalan, who was arrested and detained in civil prison by the 1st respondent District Collector invoking the powers under section 65 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for short the Act). 2. Sri. Joy J. Moyalan (hereinafter referred to as ‘defaulter’) was proceeded against for arrears of sales tax dues amounting to Rs. 17,73,432/- [Rupees seventeen lakh seventy three thousand four hundred and thirty two only]. The defaulter pleaded no means but, the District Collector, in exercise of powers conferred under section 65 of the Act issued Ext.P1 order to arrest and detain the defaulter in civil prison. 3. Ext.P1 order was challenged by the defaulter before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 25721/2003 and this Court by Ext.P2 judgment quashed ExtP1 order (Ext. P3 therein). The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus: “Since the District Collector's order was not a speaking order, this court got an enquiry conducted by the Special Cell of the police. The police have filed a report in this Court stating that on their enquiry petitioner does not have any means and he and his family members are depending on his father. In view of the police report and in the circumstances, Ext.P3 is not tenable. In the circumstances, Ext. P3 is quashed, leaving freedom to the District Collector to conduct independent enquiry as to whether petitioner has means, whether any property is held by the petitioner in benami and whether he has transferred assets to avoid payment to the Government. It is for the District Collector to collect data and furnish it to the petitioner calling for this objections, and issue fresh orders including order under Section 65 of the RR Act if there are new facts and materials available with him.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. It is for the District Collector to collect data and furnish it to the petitioner calling for this objections, and issue fresh orders including order under Section 65 of the RR Act if there are new facts and materials available with him.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. Pursuant thereto, the District Collector issued a show cause notice to the defaulter as to why a warrant of arrest shall not be issued under section 65 of the Act as he is satisfied that the defaulter is willfully withholding payment of the arrears and that the defaulter has dishonestly transferred his father's property to the name of his minor son and that the defaulter has the means to pay the arrears or some substantial part of the arrears but is refusing or neglecting to pay the same and the proceeds of the sale of his property are not sufficient to liquidate the arrears and therefore it is proposed to arrest and imprison the defaulter in the civil prison. 5. The defaulter submitted Ext. P4 explanation to the show cause notice stating that he has no means to pay the arrears and that he has no right in his father's property and he has not dishonestly transferred any property to evade the payment. 6. The District Collector after hearing the defaulter passed Ext.P7 order invoking the powers under section 65 of the Act to arrest and detain the defaulter in civil prison. The relevant portion of Ext.P7 reads as follows:- “In compliance of judgment in WP (C) No. 25721/2003 of Honorable High Court of Kerala, Tahasildar, Mukundapuram, Thrissur, Chavakkad, Kodungalur and Talappilly were directed to report on the benami property details of Sr. Joy. J. Moyalan. No properties in his name or in benami were reported. In the meanwhile, Sri. Johny, father of defaulter filed A.S. Nos. 406/04, 408/04 and 413/04 before the Honourable District Court, Thrissur for injunction against RR proceedings on his properties and gained a Judgment granting Order restraining the RR Authorities from initiating Revenue Recovery against the plaint Schedule properties belong to Sri. Johny vide the judgment dated 31.7.2010. Tahasildar (RR), Thrissur has reported vide the paper read as VII above that Sri. Johny, father of defaulter was expired on 11-06-2005 and an extent of 0.1196 Hector of land with a terrace building comprised in Resurvey No. 20/5 of Edakkunny (V) in the name of Sri. Johny vide the judgment dated 31.7.2010. Tahasildar (RR), Thrissur has reported vide the paper read as VII above that Sri. Johny, father of defaulter was expired on 11-06-2005 and an extent of 0.1196 Hector of land with a terrace building comprised in Resurvey No. 20/5 of Edakkunny (V) in the name of Sri. Johny was deliberately transferred to the name of Minor Johan, Grandson of Sri. Johny and son of Joy. J. Moyalan for avoiding revenue recovery. Tahasildar (RR), Thrissur has also reported that transaction of this hereditarily acquired property was done after the assessment period. Tahasildar also reported that defaulter is a healthy person living in the society in a good standard. Accordingly, a hearing notice U/s 65 of KRR Act was again issued to the defaulter for a personal hearing before District Collector, Thrissur on 03-02-2012 vide the paper read as IX above. Sri. Joy. J. Moyalan was absent for hearing. A counsel for the defaulter appeared for hearing and filed a petition vide the paper read as X above. As per the representation, the defaulter informed that he has no means to pay the dues and also that he has not transferred his father's property to the name of his son and also that his father transferred his property to his grandson, son of defaulter as per Will and that Will has been probated on 20-12-2010 vide LAOP-272/06 of Honorable District Court, Thrissur. Sri. Johny, father of defaulter transferred the hereditarily acquired property in which the defaulter has right to the name of the son of defaulter after the assessment period. If it is done without the defaulter's consent, the defaulter can claim for his right on the property and pay the dues using the land. The said transfer of property can be considered as an effective escape mechanism with defaulter's Will with a bad intention to evade from payment of huge arrears to government, i.e. to the Public. As per the Judgment vide Order read as VII, district collector is empowered for invoking Section 65 on the transfer of property by defaulter for avoiding payment of dues. Here, the land transferred was the land in which the defaulter had legal right. The defaulter is willfully withholding the payment of arrears. He failed to show any convincing reasons for non-payment of dues. Here, the land transferred was the land in which the defaulter had legal right. The defaulter is willfully withholding the payment of arrears. He failed to show any convincing reasons for non-payment of dues. In these circumstances, the contention in the petition vide the paper read as X is hereby rejected. I find the arrest of the defaulter is necessary to clear the huge arrears to Government. In these circumstances, I hereby Order by exercising the powers conferred as District Collector U/s 65 of KRR Act, 1968 that the defaulter Sri. Joy. J. Moyalan S/o Late Johny, Moyalan (H), Ollur, Edakkunny (V), Thrissur Taluk will be arrested and detained in Civil prison Viyyur. An arrest warrant in Form No. 22 U/s 66 of KRR Act, 1968 is issued accordingly.” Pursuant to Ext.P7 order, the defaulter was arrested and detained in civil prison, Viyyur. It was in the said circumstances the defaulter's wife filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P7 and for direction to release the defaulter. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, passed an order on 26.03.2013 to provisionally release the defaulter who was detained in civil prison, Viyyur. 7. The main contention of the petitioner is that, after this Court quashed Ext.P1 order, no new facts and materials were available with the 1st respondent to reach a different conclusion warranting the arrest of the defaulter under section 65 of the Act and Ext.P7 has been issued in violation of the directions of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. The petitioner also contends that the finding of the District Collector that, the father of the defaulter transferred his hereditarily acquired property, in which the defaulter has right, without the consent of the defaulter, to evade the payment of arrears to government, is without the basic knowledge of the law of inheritance applicable to the defaulter. It is further contended that Ext.P7 order is also against the decree passed by the Civil Court in Ext.P8 judgment whereby there is a prohibitory injunction against the respondents from proceeding against the property of defaulter's father for the sales tax dues of the defaulter. The petitioner also contends that Ext.P7 is issued against the legislative intent of section 65 and prays to quash Ext.P7. 8. The petitioner also contends that Ext.P7 is issued against the legislative intent of section 65 and prays to quash Ext.P7. 8. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, the Tahasildar (RR) wherein it is stated that on fresh enquiry it is learnt that the defaulter is living in a highly financial family background with financially sound relatives and friends and is willfully evading from remitting the huge government dues and therefore the District Collector is competent to issue a warrant of arrest against him. It is further stated that Sri. Johny, the father of the defaulter transferred his property which was hereditarily acquired by him to the name of defaulter's minor son, after the assessment period and this transaction was done with the clear intention to escape from remitting the government dues. It is contended that Ext.P7 order is issued in accordance with the liberty granted to the District Collector in Ext.P2 judgment. 9. Heard Sri. N.M. Madhu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.M. Faisal, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 10. Section 65 (1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 reads as follows:- “65. Arrest in case of wilful and fraudulent nonpayment of arrears: (1) When arrears of public revenue due on land, with interest thereon and cost of process, are not paid after the service of the written demand under Section 34 and the District Collector is satisfied that the defaulter or his surety is willfully withholding payment of the arrears, or has dishonestly transferred any part of his property, or has been guilty of fraudulent conduct in order to evade payment, or that defaulter has the means to pay the arrears or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects to pay the same, or the proceeds of the sale of the property of the defaulter and his surety are not sufficient to liquidate the arrears with interest thereon and cost of process, he may issue a warrant for the arrest of the defaulter. No such warrant shall be issued before serving a notice upon the defaulter calling upon the defaulter calling upon him to appear before the District Collector at the time and place specified in the notice and to show-cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison. No such warrant shall be issued before serving a notice upon the defaulter calling upon the defaulter calling upon him to appear before the District Collector at the time and place specified in the notice and to show-cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison. The District Collector shall on the appearance of the defaulter, hear him and consider such other evidence as may be produced by him. Upon the conclusion of the enquiry, the District Collector may, if he is convinced that such course is necessary, make an order for the detention of the defaulter in the civil prison and shall, in that event, cause him to be arrested: Provided that, in order to give the defaulter an opportunity to clear the arrears, the District Collector may, before making the order of detention, grant him time not exceeding thirty days on his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the District Collector for his appearance at the expiration of the specified period. If the arrears are not paid by that date, the District Collector shall pass orders for the arrest and detention of the defaulter in the civil prison of his district or, if there is no suitable accommodation in that civil prison, in the civil prison of any neighbouring district.” 11. The factors relevant under S.65 of the Act to make an order for the detention of the defaulter in the civil prison are: “1. the defaulter or his surety is willfully withholding payment of the arrears. 2. dishonestly transferred any part of his property. 3. has been guilty of fraudulent conduct in order to evade payment. 4. defaulter has the means to pay the arrears or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects to pay the same.” 12. It is true that, in Ext.P2 judgment, while quashing Ext.P1, this Court granted liberty to the District Collector to conduct independent enquiry as to whether the defaulter has means, whether any property is held by the defaulter in benami and whether he has transferred assets to avoid payment to the government. In Ext.P7, the District Collector has no case that any property is held by the defaulter in benami or the defaulter had transferred any of his assets to avoid payment to the government. In Ext.P7, the District Collector has no case that any property is held by the defaulter in benami or the defaulter had transferred any of his assets to avoid payment to the government. Their case is that, the father of the defaulter transferred his hereditarily acquired property, in which the defaulter has right, to the name of the defaulter's son without the consent of the defaulter, after the assessment period to evade the payment of arrears to government and if it is done without the defaulter’s consent, the defaulter can claim for his right on the property and pay the dues using the property. 13. The ‘will’ by which the property has been bequeathed to the defaulter's son by the defaulter's father is produced as Ext. P6 and from a perusal of the same it can be seen that the property bequeathed is the balance extent available with Sri Johny from out of the property obtained by him as B schedule in the partition deed No. 1080/1965 of Oorakam SRO and purchase certificate No. 1480/1977 issued by the Land Tribunal, Thrissur. Therefore, the finding in Ext. P7 that the property involved is hereditarily acquired by Sri. Johny over which the defaulter has right cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, as rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioner, the defaulter would have only a factional right in his father's property, that too, if his father died intestate. Even according to the District Collector the property of the defaulter's father was bequeathed to the defaulter's son. Therefore, the finding of the District Collector that the defaulter can claim for his right on the property and pay the dues using the said property is not sustainable. 14. The reports of the revenue officials that, the defaulter is living in a highly financial family background with financially sound relatives and friends are not factors relevant under S.65 of the Act to make an order for the detention of the defaulter in the civil prison. No objective assessment of facts and the factors relevant under S.65 of the Act was made by the District Collector to make an order for the detention of the defaulter in civil prison. No objective assessment of facts and the factors relevant under S.65 of the Act was made by the District Collector to make an order for the detention of the defaulter in civil prison. There is nothing on record before the District Collector to hold that the defaulter has means to pay the arrears, or the defaulter is willfully withholding payment of arrears of sales tax or has dishonestly transferred his property or guilty of fraudulent conduct. Therefore, I quash Ext.P7. The petitioner's husband, the defaulter is set free. However, this will not prevent the respondents from taking any fresh steps to recover the amount due from the defaulter, in accordance with law. 15. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.