IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16126 of 2011(M) ------------------------ PETITIONER : -------------------- JOY SEBASTIAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSIA, CHALAKKAL HOUSE, ROOR CANAL ROAD, IYNTHOL, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.RAJU RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. TAHASILDAR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, VADAKKANCHERRY 680 582. 3. KEERTHI, D/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KALLIVALAPPIL (H), VARAVOOR PO, THRISSUR 680 585. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 16126 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED NO. 144/2011 DATED 7/1/2011. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DATED 1/1/2011. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P. NO. 78 OF 2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/1/2011 IN I.A. NO. 291 OF 2011 IN O.P. NO. 78 OF 2011 OF ATTACHMENT PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16/5/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).16126/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 16th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The grievance projected in the writ petition is that, the petitioner, who owns the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed, is virtually prevented from enjoying the same in a better manner by virtue of the stand taken by the respondents in refusing to effect mutation and to accept the basic tax in respect of the property, which made him to approach this Court for appropriate reliefs. It is stated that the reason stated in Ext.P5 communication is that there is some Court attachment over the property in question. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Kuriakose Elias Trust for Communication and Development v. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Others ( 2009 (2) KHC 602), holding that 'attachment' is not a ground for refusing to effect transfer of registry as per Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. W.P.(C).16126/2011 2 4. Considering the facts and figures, this Court does not find it necessary to take a different turn and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, in the light of the dictum cited supra. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition, by the petitioner. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs