Allowed

Vijosh v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Nov 2018WP(C)/27853/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court held that the Village Officer cannot refuse mutation or basic land tax acceptance despite pendency of attachment proceedings in a civil suit, citing established precedents that revenue and registration records are separate from civil proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Village Officer directed to consider petitioner's request for mutation and basic land tax acceptance within six weeks without delay.

Vijosh Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 27853 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VIJOSH AGED 36 YEARS, S/O DEVASSY, AACHANDY (H), VELUPPADAM, VELUPPADAM P.O, VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR-680 303.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.JINISH PAUL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-680 303.

¶11

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE,THRISSUR.

¶12

3 RAJAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN,CHERODAN(H),VELUPPADAM P.O, VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR – 680303.

¶13

4 SUKUMARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN,CHERODAN(H) VELUPPADAM P.O, VARANTHARAPPLLY VILLAGE,CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR – 680303.

¶14

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1, SRI.K.B.PRADEEP FOR R4

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶16

26.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

W.P.(C)No.27853 of 2018

¶19

Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2018

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows.

¶22

¶23

i. To issue a writ of Mandamus or such other writ or Order directing the 2^nd respondent to effect mutation of property covered as per Ext.P1 Sale Deed with immediate effect on the basis of the payment accepted as per Ext.P2 receipt.

¶24

ii. To grant such other reliefs that are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. "

¶25

Heard Sri.P.Jinish Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Sri.K.B.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.4. Though notice process has been duly completed on R-3, there is no appearance for that party. It is submitted by the petitioner that R-3 was impleaded only because he is the vendor who sold the property to the petitioner as per Ext.P-1.

¶26

The petitioner's application for mutation in respect of the property purchased by him as per Ext.P-1 registered sale deed

¶27

..3..

¶28

W.P.(C).No.27853/2018

¶29

No.1466/1/2017 dated 26.9.2017 of SRO, Kodaly from the 3^rd respondent has been denied by the 2^nd respondent Village Officer on the ground that the 4^th respondent has obtained Ext.P-4 attachment order dated 11.10.2017 in O.S.No.3013/2017 filed by him as against R-3 in respect of the abovesaid property.

¶30

From the perusal of materials on record it can be seen that encumbrance is noted in respect of the abovesaid property as serial No.27 of Ext.P-3 encumbrance certificate dated 3.8.2018. Serial No.27 of Ext.P-3 encumbrance certificate is on the basis of Ext.P-4 attachment order dated 11.10.2017 issued in favour of the 4^th respondent on I.A.No.5288/2017 in O.S.No.3013/2017 filed by the 4^th respondent before the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda, etc. Further from the perusal of pleadings and materials on record it can be seen that by Ext.P-1 registered sale deed dated 26.9.2017, the 3^rd respondent had already conveyed his property to the petitioner on 26.9.2017. It is only thereafter the 4^th respondent has secured Ext.P-4 attachment order on 11.10.2017. That apart it is now well said by a catena of rulings of this Court as in

¶31

W.P.(C).No.27853/2018

¶32

..4..

¶33

Nevin Raju v. S.Basheer & Others [2015 (3) KLJ 197] , Tulasibhai v. State of Kerala [2010 (4) KLT 215], Sudan K.K. & Others v. State of Kerala [2013 (4) KLT 563] etc, that even pendency of revenue recovery proceedings, attachment proceedings etc, against the defaulter in respect of the property concerned or pendency of civil suit concerned etc. cannot be the legal basis for refusing to accept land tax from the party concerned. It is also trite that mere grant of mutation and transfer of registry and mere acceptance of basic land tax from the party concerned, will not in any manner amount to grant of title and such actions of mutation, acceptance of basic land tax are only for the fiscal purposes as envisaged in Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. Therefore the stand of the respondents more particularly respondent No.2 in refusing to mutate the property and accept basic land tax from the petitioner on ground of pendency of Ext.P-4 civil proceedings and attachment order etc, is illegal and ultra vires.

¶34

Further it appears that the Tahsildar concerned has also issued Ext.P-6 letter dated 18.11.2017 instructing the 2^nd

¶35

..5..

¶36

W.P.(C).No.27853/2018

¶37

respondent Village Officer that in view of the pendency of Ext.P-4 civil proceedings, the question of mutation may be taken up only after the resolution of those civil proceedings etc. In view of the well said legal position, the stand taken in Ext.P-6 is illegal and ultra vires and unenforceable. Accordingly it is ordered that the 2^nd respondent will take necessary steps to consider the request of the petitioner for mutation and transfer of registry and for acceptance of basic land tax and will grant the said request if it is otherwise in order and it is made clear that the said request for mutation, acceptance of basic land tax etc made by the petitioner cannot be refused on the grounds shown in Ext.P-6. It is made further clear that none of the observations and orders made by this Court will have any impact on the civil litigative proceedings between the parties as seen in Ext.P-4 and such issues and disputes should be resolved independently by the Civil Court concerned, untrammeled and uninfluenced by the observations and findings made by this Court in this judgment. The 2^nd respondent Village Officer will ensure that orders are passed on the

¶38

W.P.(C).No.27853/2018

¶39

..6..

¶40

application for grant of mutation and acceptance of basic land tax without much delay preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard in the light of the abovesaid directions and orders made by this Court herein above. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶43

MMG

¶44

W.P.(C).No.27853/2018

¶45

..7..

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1466/1/2017 OF KODALY SRO DATED 26.9.2017 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT TOWARDS THE MUTATION DATED 17.10.2017 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 3.8.2018 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT WARRANT DATED 11.10.17 IN IA.NO.5288/2017 IN O.S NO.3013/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA EXHIBIT P5 THE LETTER EVIDENCING THE LOAN AVAILED BY THE PETITIONER FROM BANK

Vijosh v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijosh v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoli Nafeesa, Vs the Deputy Chief Engineer

A.C.Koyakidavu Vs Settlement Officer

Ramakkalmedu Green Energy (P) Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

E.G. Granites Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Ramesh Kumaran N Vs the Secretary,Thenhipalam Grama Panchayat

K.Ratnakaran Vs State of Kerala