Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition as against the refusal on the part of the revenue authorities to effect mutation of his property. Petitioner purchased an item of the property as per Ext.P1 sale deed No.1274/2012 from the 2nd respondent. The sale deed was registered on 23.7.2012. The petitioner has produced Ext.P2 settlement deed executed by the mother of the 2nd respondent by which the 2nd respondent became the owner of the property which is the subject matter of Ext.P1. 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1st respondent and they are in strained relationship. Subsequent to the purchase of the property the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application for mutation of the property before the Additional Tahsildar, Kottarakara pointing out that he requires the same for the purpose of the availing loan for construction of house. But the Additional Tahsildar, Kottarakkara as per Ext.P10 letter dated 5.2.2013 informed  that the mutation could not be effected since the 1st respondent has filed O.S.No.437/2012 before the Munsiff Court, Kottarakara against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, wherein a temporary injunction is granted in I.A.No.2230/2012. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent has filed another O.S.No.675/2012 against the District Collector, Village Officer, Tahsildar, RDO, petitioner and 2nd respondent and during the pendency of those cases no proceedings can be initiated for mutation.

"The plaint schedule shop room and the property in which it situates belonged to defendant No.2 by virtue of a document executed by her parents".

3. The petitioner had produced a copy of the counter affidavit filed by him in O.S.No.437/2012 as Ext.P5. Ext.P6 is the copy of the plaint in OS.No.675/2012 filed by the 1st defendant before the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara for a permanent injunction against the defendants from effecting mutation of the property covered by the sale deed No.1274/2005 (Ext.P1). He has also produced copy of I.A.No.3751/2012 in which the 1st respondent prayed for an order of temporary injunction restraining defendants from effecting mutation of plaint schedule property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. The petitioner has filed counter affidavit as against the I.A. Further the petitioner has produced  Ext.P11 plaint in O.S.No.701/2012 filed by him praying for declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property as against the defendants - respondents 1 and 2 and for injunction restraining them from committing any wastage of the property. According to the petitioner he is put in trouble in between the fight between the respondents 1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent is taking up new contentions in each case. It is also probable that he may not be able to buid a house in case he is to wait for the conclusion of cases between them.

(Emphasis supplied)

9. In the present case the petitioner submitted application for mutation on the strength of sale deed Ext. P1. As per the Note under Rule 10, no further enquiries are required in the case, as it comes under the 1st category.

10. In this context it is necessary to have a look at the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

11. In Tulasibhai Vs State of Kerala: 2010 (4) KLT 215, this court held that mutation will not improve the title of the purchaser and it will not have any effect on revenue recovery proceedings. There the property was transferred at a time when the vendor of the property was in default in repayment of the loan availed from the Central bank of India. Since the bank had initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the defaulter the revenue officials  refused to effect mutation. There it was held that even if mutation was effected in accordance with the transfer of registry rules in favour of the purchaser, the claims as against the property will remain unaffected and that there is no provision under the Transfer of Registry rules which prohibits mutation in such circumstances.

14. Therefore it is evident from the above decisions as well as the relevant rules, that there cannot be any valid objection for effecting mutation. Once mutation is effected petitioner will be able to submit his application for availing housing loan from the Bank for construction of house,as he will be able to pay land tax.

15. Under the provisions contained in the Land Tax Act, a holder of land is to pay tax. Payment of land tax or mutation in favour of the petitioner will not enable the  petitioner to claim any better title and it will not in any way affect the adjudication of the disputes between the respondents in the pending civil cases, as held in the judgments supra. Going by the provisions contained inTtransfer of Registry Rules 1966, there is no impediment for affecting mutation. Therefore there is no meaning in compelling the petitioner to wait till the disposal of the civil suits, for effecting mutation. The right of a bonafide purchaser to enjoy his property cannot be permitted to be defeated merely because somebody files civil suit to settle scores with someone. Petitioner has submitted his application on the strength of Ext.P1 sale deed. Going by the provisions contained in Rule 3 the revenue officials should have effected the mutation immediately after the registration of the sale deed, in which event the petitioner would not have faced with such situations.