Petitioner, who purchased property at an auction under the SARFAESI Act, challenged rejection of mutation due to prior sales tax arrears. Held that mutation can be permitted only subject to a specific charge notation to protect state revenue rights.
Ext.P5 order upheld; mutation permitted subject to specific notation of sales tax arrears charge.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/15TH PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 6310 of 2008 (A)
PETITIONER :
----------
WILFRED CULAS, S/O. ROCKEN CULAS, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT TC 29/298, MRA - 61,, THENGAPPURA LANE, KAITHAMUKKU, PALKULANGARA MURI,, PETTAH VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS :
-----------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. TAHSILDAR (R.R.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.
6. AUTHORISED OFFICER,
JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, BRANCH, TC 28/2222(4), M.G.ROAD, FORT P.O.,, PIN-693 023, VAZHUVANGADI MURI, VANCHIYOOR, VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.
WP(C).No. 6310 of 2008 (A)
*7. SANTHOSH, S/O. JANARDHANAN, TC 13/719, ANAND BHAVAN, GAS HOUSE ROAD, KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
*R7 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DT 16/6/2009 IN IA NO.7264/2009.
R1 TO R5 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 6310 of 2008 (A)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
WP(C) No.6310 of 2008
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner purchased a certain extent of property through an auction conducted by the 6th respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act]. It appears that the property was mortgaged to the Bank by a borrower and that when the loan became out of order, it was put to auction. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the property had a charge of arrears of Sales Tax caused by the earlier owner and therefore, the mutation of this property, when applied for by the petitioner, was rejected noticing the prior first charge, by Ext.P5 order. The petitioner was impugned this order.
petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5.
WP(C) No.6310 of 2008
2
Kerala and Others [2009 4 SCC 94] .
WP(C) No.6310 of 2008
3
says that he is intending to approach the Sales Tax Department seeking to settle the arrears under an applicable amnesty scheme. If any such Scheme is available to the benefit of the petitioner, nothing contained in this judgment would operate against him and he would have the liberty to approach the authorities and have the arrears settled in the best possible manner available to him under any such applicable scheme.
his client is only a victim, who purchased the property, since the Bank did not inform him of the charge. I do not propose to go into the validity of the submission, but I leave it open to the petitioner to proceed against the Bank, if he is so advised.
The writ petition is ordered as above. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs and I direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge
sp/06/03/17
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a purchaser at auction is entitled to mutation of property when it is subject to an earlier charge of sales tax arrears.
How to effect mutation to protect the State’s right to recover sales tax arrears from the property.
Whether the petitioner can seek mutation subject to a specific condition noting the revenue charge.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and OthersReferred¶2
Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [2009 4 SCC 94] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Wilfred Culas
The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram
Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram
Tahsildar (R.R.), Thiruvananthapuram
Additional Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram
Village Officer, Muttathara Village, Thiruvananthapuram Dist.
Devan Ramachandrann
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
