Dismissed

K.J.Abraham v. the Dist.Collector

Kerala HC20 Mar 2009WP(C)/3651/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal to effect revenue mutation despite Tahsildar's direction. Court held that pending civil suits and charges do not bar mutation under Transfer of Registry Rules, as mutation is strictly for fiscal purposes and does not adjudicate title.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to produce judgment copy before Respondent No.3 to pass orders expeditiously (within 4 weeks) to effect mutation.

K.J.Abraham Vs the Dist.Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 3651 of 2009(I)

PETITIONER(S):

K.J. ABRAHAM, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 61,

¶10

CHAIRMAN, CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY, KADAMMANITTA, RESIDING AT KALAMANNIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA,

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA.

¶16

VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶17

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.. SANTHOSH

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ANTONY DOMINIC,J.

¶20

W.P.(C).No.3651 OF 2009

¶21

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2009.

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the refusal on the part of the respondent in effecting mutation in respect of the property having an extent of 4.15 acres situated in survey No.8 and another extent of 80 sq. meter, 60 sq.meter, 75 sq.meter and another 80 sq. meter situated in Sy. Nos.19,20,21 and 22 of Thiruvalla Village. According to the petitioner, although the Tahsildar has ordered its mutation, the Village Officer has refused to carry out the said direction. On instruction the Government Pleader today submits that there are civil suits pending in respect of the property and that an order of attachment is also in force. In addition, the Government Pleader also points out that there are sale tax arrears in respect of which and there is a charge over the property.

¶24

WP(c).No.3651/09 2

¶25

Be that as it may, all that the petitioner seeks is that mutation shall be effected in his favour as provided under the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules. The Rules itself are clear that mutation is only for fiscal purposes and can have no effect what so ever on the claims that others may have made on the property in question. Therefore the pendency of the suit need not stand in the way of the respondents in passing orders on the application made by the petitioner for mutation. This view has been taken by this court in Ext.P1 judgment in WP(c).No.26792/07, which according to the petitioner concerns another half of the very same property.

¶26

For these reasons, I dispose of this writ petition directing that orders shall be passed on the applications made by the petitioner for effecting mutation consistent with the position as reflected in Ext.P3 order dated 9.9.2008 of the Tahsildar and in the light of this judgment.

¶27

WP(c).No.3651/09 3

¶28

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 3^rd respondent who shall pass orders as above, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment

¶29

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶30

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶31

vi/

¶32

WP(c).No.3651/09 4

K.J.Abraham v. the Dist.Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.J.Abraham v. the Dist.Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheeja Thomas Vs the Secretary, Rta, Kottayam

Shylaja M Vs Secretary,Rta Vadakara

K.Rajendran Vs Puneeth Kumar

Joseph Vs T.P.Senkumar

N.Karunakaran Nair Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Electrical & Allied Eng. Co. Ltd. Vs the Executive Engineer, K.S.H.B. & Ors.