IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10785 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. P.T.MADHU, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, PUTHENPURAYIL, THALACHIRA ARUM P.O., MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 2. JAYASKUMARI.P.D., AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.P.T.MADHU, PUTHENPURAYIL, THALACHIRA ARUM P.O., MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10785 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T A request made by the petitioner for effecting mutation of his property having an extent of 1.39 hectares in Re-Sy.No.8/7 of Malayalapuzha Village was turned down by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P4. The reason stated in Ext.P4 is that there is a revenue recovery proceedings pending. 2. In my view, the pendency of the recovery proceedings as stated in Ext.P4 is no reason to decline mutation. As is evident from the Transfer of Registry Rules itself, mutation is only for fiscal purposes and any claim either for title or otherwise, cannot be affected by an order passed on an application for effecting mutation. 3. Therefore, Ext.P4 will stand set aside and the 1st respondent shall pass fresh orders on the application made by the petitioner in the light of the observations made in the judgment, on production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp