Kerala High Court
Rejimol T.J vs State Of Kerala on 8 June, 2016
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2017/13TH POUSHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 38780 of 2016 (V)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
REJIMOL T.J.,
AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.K.T.NAZAR,
KIZHEKKETHIL HOUSE,
EDAYIRIKKAPUZHA P.O.,
KANGAZHA,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686001.
3. THE THASILDAR,
CHANGANASSERY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM-686001.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KANGAZHA VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686002.
5. SINI MATHEW,
W/O.MATHEW VARGHESE,
KUTTAMPEROOR, KOOTHARAPALLY P.O.,
KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686540.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
EL
WP(C).No. 38780 of 2016 (V)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.923/16 DATED 8/6/2016 OF
SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KARUKACHAL.
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H6-5491/16 DATED 6/8/2016
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.225 OF 2016 BEFORE THE
HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANASERY.
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 7/9/2016 TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
EL
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 38780 OF 2016
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of January, 2017
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the delay in effecting mutation and thereby refusing to collect land tax for the landed property purchased by her. According to the petitioner, petitioner had purchased the landed property from the fifth respondent on 08.06.2016, vide Ext. P1 sale deed. Petitioner has submitted application for effecting mutation, which was declined by the statutory authority, as per Ext. P2 order stating that O.S. No. 225/2016 is pending before the Munsiff Court, Changanassery. It is thus challenging Ext. P2 order, petitioner has approached this Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the W.P.(C). NO. 38780 OF 2016 2 petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that it was due to the pendency of a suit filed by a third person against the fifth respondent, the mutation is not effected. It is a well settled proposition in law that mere pendency of a suit or revenue proceedings is not a bar for effecting mutation of the property. However, correcting mutation will be guided by any proceedings that is finally taken in the said suit.
4. Therefore in my considered opinion the stand adopted by the third respondent that since the suit is pending, no mutation can be effected is not a correct position of law. The third respondent is guided by the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules. The Transfer of Registry Rules, does not prohibit the statutory authority from effecting mutation merely because the suit is pending. Therefore, the third respondent is duty bound to consider the application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules. If W.P.(C). NO. 38780 OF 2016 3 consequent to a decree passed in the suit pending, any change is to be effected, the authority is also vested with sufficient powers under the said Rules to change the mutation.
5. That being the situation, I think it is only appropriate that a direction is issued to the third respondent to take on board the application submitted by the petitioner, and consider the same, in accordance with law, and attain a logical conclusion, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, I do so. Needless to say, if in the pending suit any finality is attained with respect to the property adverse to the mutation effected, the same can be considered by the third respondent at that point of time.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE DCS