IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 33425 of 2005(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. SAJI SADANANDAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. SADANANDAN, PULIMOOTIL HOUSE, THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. BINDU. B., AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. SAJI SADANANDAN, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUDHEESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANCHAL VILLAGE, ANCHAL. BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO.2393/04 DT.17.6.2004 IN FAVOUR OF 2ND PETITIONER. P2: TAX RECEIPTS DT.23.6.2004. P3: MUTATION CERTIFICATE EFFECTED IN FAVOUR OF 2ND PETITIONER DT.23.6.2004. P4: PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DT.27.8.2005. P5: NOTICE OF ATTACHMENT DT.4.10.05. P6: APPEAL FILED U/S.46 OF THE R.R. ACT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. P7 SERIES: PHOTOCOPIES OF A/D CARDS SIGNED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND TAHSILDAR. P8: NOTICE OF SALE DT.27.10.05. P9: REPRESENTATION DT.9.11.05 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.33425 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners are challenging Ext.P4 issued by the second respondent cancelling the mutation effected in favour of second petitioner. Government Pleader submitted that first petitioner was the owner of the property and when revenue recovery proceedings were initiated on 24.9.2001 for recovery of arrears of motor vehicle tax, he transferred the property to his wife who is the second petitioner herein. Mutation was effected without noticing attachment by revenue recovery authorities and therefore, the same was corrected through Ext.P4 proceedings. When notice of recovery is issued under Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act, there is a charge over the property and therefore if mutation is effected, the same has to be necessarily corrected. In the circumstances, W.P. is dismissed upholding Ext.P4 and there will be direction to the respondents to sell the property and recover the arrears of motor vehicle tax, if not paid by the petitioners. However, since stay was granted by this court for sometime and if recovery is not effected, surcharge or additional tax for delay in 2 payment of motor vehicle tax will stand waived provided the actual arrears of motor vehicle tax is paid before 15.8.2008. If payment is made, order cancelling mutation will be revoked. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms