Disposed

George Varghese v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Nov 2018WP(C)/35871/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that pendency of securitization proceedings is not a valid ground to refuse mutation without a prohibitory order. It directed authorities to decide the mutation request within six weeks after hearing all parties and verifying for any interdicting court orders.

What did the court decide?

Petition referred for decision within 6 weeks by the authority after hearing all parties and verifying for interdicting orders.

George Varghese Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No.35871 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GEORGE VARGHESE, AGED 46, S/O VARGHESE, BLESSY HOUSE, ALAYAMON P. O, ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PIN- 691306. REPRESENTED BY P.C.CHACKO, AGED 70, S/O CHACKO, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ALAYAMON P.O, ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PIN- 691306. BY ADVS. SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR SMT.T.M.BINITHA

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695001.

¶10

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION RD., KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, KERALA - 691 013.

¶11

3 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR PUNALUR TALUK, FIRST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM - TENKASI RD., PANAMKUTTYMALA, PUNALUR, KOLLAM, KERALA - 691 305.

¶12

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ALAYAMON VILLAGE, ALENCHERY ONTHUPACHA RD., KOLLAM, KERALA - 691 306.

¶13

WP(C).No.35871 of 2018

¶14

¶15

5 ELSY JOSE D/O.THANKAMMA THOMAS, RESIDING AT JOEL VILLA, MULAKKINALATHU HOUSE, ALAYAMON P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 306.

¶16

SMT.A.C.VIDHYA, GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 TO R4

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.35871 of 2018

¶19

¶20

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶21

=============================

¶22

W.P(C)No.35871 of 2018

¶23

=============================

¶24

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2018

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil)

¶27

are as follows:

¶28

“I. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ or direction calling for a report from respondent Nos.2 to 4 in respect of delay caused in effecting mutation/transfer of registry of the property of the petitioner lying in Sy.No.460/204/1 of Alayamon Village, Punalur Taluk, Kollam District based on Exhibit P2 application.

¶29

II. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction and quash Exhibit P14 order passed by the respondent No.2 and also direct respondent Nos.2 to 4 to take immediate steps to mutate/transfer the registry of property, lying in Sy.No.460/204/1 of Alayamon Village, Punalur Taluk, Kollam District, obtained by the petitioenr as per Exhibit P1 in his name.

¶30

III. Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time.

¶31

IV. Award the cost of this proceeding to the petitioners.”

¶32

WP(C).No.35871 of 2018

¶33

¶34

2. Heard Smt.T.M.Binitha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 4. In the nature of orders proposed to be passed in this writ petition, notice to R-5 will stand dispensed with.

¶35

3. It is stated that the petitioner has purchased an extent of 6.88 Ares of property in survey No.460/204/1 of Alayamon Village, Punalur Taluk, Kollam Revenue District, along with the residential building thereon, by participating the e-auction conducted by the Corporation Bank by paying Rs.64,65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Four Lakhs and Sixty Five Thousand), as auction amount and had spent Rs.6 lakhs towards the stamp duty and other expenses for registering the sale certificate. The sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner on 26.12.2016 and Ext.P-1 sale certificate was issued by the Corporation Bank, which was registered as document No.754/2017 on the file of the SRO, Anjal

¶36

WP(C).No.35871 of 2018

¶37

¶38

on 28.04.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P-2 application for mutation of the said property covered by Ext.P-1 in the name of the petitioner, in terms of the provisions contained in the Transfer of Registry Rules and though Ext.P-2 application is submitted as early as in May, 2017, no effective action is forthcoming from the competent authority among respondents 3 & 4 etc. The petitioner could learn that respondents 3 & 4 are not taking any further action on Ext.P-2 application for mutation on the ground that securitization application proceedings is pending at the instance of respondent No.5 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam, even though there are no restrictive or prohibitory orders issued in the said securitization application proceedings (SA proceedings), on the file of the DRT-II, Ernakulam.

¶39

4. It is pointed out that the property in question, which the petitioner had purchased as per

¶40

Ext.P-1 was originally mortgaged by the

¶41

WP(C).No.35871 of 2018

¶42

¶43

5^th respondent in favour of the Corporation Bank, which resulted in the impugned sale, in favour of the petitioner, which culminated in Ext.P-1 sale certificate. It is pointed out that no prohibitory/restrictive orders have issued by the DRT-II, Ernakulam in the said securitization application, as can be seen from Ext.P-11 proceedings sheet of the said Debt Relief Tribunal.

¶44

5. It has been held by this Court in a catena of decisions as in Tulasibhai v. State of Kerala [ 2010 (4) KLT 215 ], that mere initiation of revenue recovery proceedings and attachment proceedings against the defaulter will not be a bar to grant mutation of the property, in favour of the purchaser, as per the Transfer of Registry Rules and that the claims as against the property will remain unaffected, even after in the said mutation and that there are no provisions in the Transfer of Registry Rules, which prohibits or interdicts such mutation in such cases. In Sudan v. State of

¶45

WP(C).No.35871 of 2018

¶46

¶47

Kerala [2013 (4) KLT 563], it was held that a mere pendency of civil suit cannot be a legal bar in accepting land tax unless it is specifically interdicted by a competent court of law. It has also been held in Vijayarajan v. Tahsildar [2013 (2) KLT SN P.93], that pendency of civil suit is not a bar for accepting land tax and the fact that

¶48

the property has been attached by the revenue recovery proceedings etc., cannot be the rational basis for denying the request for mutation, acceptance of basic land tax etc. According to the petitioner, there are no pending orders now issued by the DRT-II, Ernakulam, which prohibits or restrains the grant of mutation in favour of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P-1 sale certificate. The petitioner would rely on Ext.P-11 proceeding sheet of the DRT to point out this factual position. In the result, it is ordered that the refusal on the part of the competent authority among respondents 3 & 4, in considering the request

¶49

WP(C).No.35871 of 2018

¶50

¶51

for mutation and for acceptance of basic land tax as made out by the petitioner in Ext.P-2 application on the mere ground of pendency of securitization applications, will not be a valid ground for refusing the said request. Of course, if there are any pending orders issued by any competent Forum including the DRT which interdicts the competent revenue officers from mutating the property or accepting the basic land tax, then certainly, that would act as a deterrence. The petitioner would point out that no such orders has been issued by the DRT by placing reliance on Ext.P-11. However, to take care of the interest of contesting respondent No.5, it is ordered that the competent authority among respondents 3 & 4 will take up the request made by the petitioner in

¶52

Ext.P-2 application and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and contesting respondent No.5, will take a decision thereon, in accordance with the

¶53

WP(C).No.35871 of 2018

¶54

¶55

provisions contained in the Transfer of Registry Rules and in the light of the abovecited judgments, without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The competent authority among respondents 3 & 4 may give a reasonable opportunity to contesting respondent No.5 to produce any orders from any competent court including DRT, to ascertain as to whether or not such courts/Tribunal have issued any order interdicting any grant of mutation or acceptance of basic land tax in respect of the petitioner's property covered by Ext.P-1 sale certificate, in favour of the petitioner etc.

¶56

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶57

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶58

vgd/29.11.18

¶59

WP(C).No.35871 of 2018

¶60

¶61

APPENDIX

¶62

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶63

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION BANK DT.26/12/2016 IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR MUTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.3132/2017 DT.13/03/2017. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 TO RESPONDENT NO.3 ALONG WITH NOTICE ISSUED BY COUNSEL. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 DT.06/05/2017 TO RESPONDENT NO.3. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RESPONDENT NO.5 DT.22/5/2017. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RESPONDENT NO.5 DT.22/05/2017. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RESPONDENT NO.5 DT.02/06/2017. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RESPONDENT NO.5 DT.15/06/2017. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF REPLY SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DT.15/06/2017. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS IN S.A.NO.114/2017 OF DRT-II, ERNAKULAM.

¶64

WP(C).No.35871 of 2018

¶65

¶66

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 TO THE PETITIONER DT.13/06/2018. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DT.24/06/2017. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RESPONDENT NO.3 DIRECTING TO TAKE ACTION ON EXHIBIT P2 ONLY ON ORDERS FROM DRT ON S.A.NO.114/2017.

George Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Varghese v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.G. Granites Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Vijosh Vs the State of Kerala

Ramesh Kumaran N Vs the Secretary,Thenhipalam Grama Panchayat

Abdul Jaleel Vs the Union of India

N.Kamalam Vs District Collector

Sanjay Kumar Pillai, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mattanchery