Kerala High Court
C.C.Thulasibhai vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2010
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23986 of 2009(P)
1. C.C.THULASIBHAI, W/O. SURENDRAKUMAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. TAHSILDAR,
4. VILLAGE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/09/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 23986 OF 2009 (P)
=====================
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner purchased a property as per Ext.P4 sale deed. When she obtained Ext.P5 non encumbrance certificate, no encumbrance in respect of the property was mentioned in this document. However, when she applied for mutation, that was rejected by Ext.P1 on the ground that revenue recovery proceedings are pending.
2. She filed an appeal and that was rejected by Ext.P3. As already seen, the reason stated for rejection of her request for mutation is the pendency of the revenue recovery proceedings.
3. It is stated that the petitioner's vendor had availed of loan from the Central Bank of India and had committed default. It is stated that the Bank initiated recovery proceedings against the defaulter, which is the reason stated in Exts.P1 and P3.
4. Petitioner also submits that when recovery proceedings were initiated, the vendor applied to the Government and had obtained Ext.P6 order, enabling him to discharge the liability in 45 instalments and according to her, remittances is WPC No. 23986/09 :2 : being made also. It is therefore stated that the rejection for effecting mutation is illegal.
5. Learned Government Pleader relied on the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules and also the Revenue Recovery Act and contended that since the property was transferred after the amount due to the Bank had fallen due, the transfer in favour of the petitioner is not binding on the Government and therefore mutation cannot be effected.
6. However, even if mutation is effected in pursuance to the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules, such mutation can have no impact either on the proceedings initiated by the Government nor will it improve the title of the petitioner over the property in question.
7. In case if the provisions of Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act are attracted to the transfer in question, even if mutation is effected in favour of the petitioner, the claim of the respondents will remain unaffected. For these reasons and also as there is no prohibition either in the Revenue Recovery Act or the Transfer of Registry Rules against effecting mutation in respect of a property in relation to which revenue recovery WPC No. 23986/09 :3 : proceedings are pending, I am inclined to think that the view taken in Exts.P1 and P3 is erroneous.
8. Therefore, I set aside Exts.P1 and P3 and direct the respondents to effect mutation in favour of the petitioner. It is clarified that the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner will not in any manner affect the claim of the respondents to continue revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner's property.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp