IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33067 of 2010(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PRAKASH KOSHY BENJAMIN,ALPINE HOMES, ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS,TEMPLE ROD,KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PATHANAMTHITTA.PIN-689 645 2. THE TAHSILDAR,THIRUVALLA TALUK, THIRUVALLA.PIN-689 101 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KUTTAPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA.PIN-689 645. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOTTAYAM.PIN- 686 001. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,R.R.TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA.PIN-689 101. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33067 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is a Building Contractor, registered under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). With respect to assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, Ext.P1 order of penalty and Ext.P2 order of assessment were issued against the petitioner. It is stated that appeals filed against Ext.P1 and P2 are pending disposal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as well as before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), respectively. Ext.P3 and P4 are the interim orders passed by the appellate Tribunal as well as the Deputy Commissioner against realisation of amounts in dispute. According to the petitioner, he had already complied with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P3 and P4. 2. It is mentioned that with respect to Ext.P1 and P2 orders, recovery steps were initiated on an earlier occasion by issuing Ext.P5 series demand notices. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had sold an extent of 25.29 Ares of land as per Ext.P7 sale deed executed on 24.6.2010. Petitioner is intending to sell remaining properties, out of the land developed by him as part of his business activities. Grievance of the petitioner is that the W.P.(C).33067/10-G -2- 3rd respondent Village Officer is refusing to effect mutation in the Registry of Land Records with respect to property already sold by the petitioner. The petitioner is also prevented from selling the remaining property which he had already developed, which is covered under Ext.P6 tax receipt. 3. According to the petitioner, the refusal on the part of the 3rd respondent in effecting mutation on the ground that revenue recovery steps are pending, is absolutely illegal and without any basis. There is no provision in the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 or in the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, enabling refusal of mutation on the ground that revenue recovery steps are pending. In this regard the petitioner relies on a decision of this court in Thulasibhai Vs. State of Kerala (2010 (4) KLT 215), in which it is held that revenue recovery steps against the vendor is no reason to deny transfer of Registry in the name of the purchasers of the property. Therefore the petitioner seeks direction against respondents 1 to 3 to effect transfer of Registry of the property covered under Ext.P6 tax receipt. Petitioner inter alia seeks declaration to the effect that, the revenue recovery steps initiated under Ext.P5 series notices will not stand in the way of purchasers of the properties in getting mutation effected. 4. The question mooted for consideration is slightly different from the issue decided in the ruling cited above. If a W.P.(C).33067/10-G -3- person is in default of public revenue and if the revenue recovery steps are already initiated, any subsequent transfer will be invalid in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Even though there is no specific provision restraining transfer of Registry, the question remains as to whether the authority under the Revenue Recovery Act shall permit such transfer being effected, after knowing very well that revenue recovery steps are pending against the owner of the property who is the defaulter. However, I am not entering upon any finding regarding that issue, in this writ petition, since the petitioner is seeking an alternative relief on the basis of an offer that he will furnish security of other immovable property having sufficient valuation. I am of the view that if the petitioner furnishes security of immovable property having equivalent valuation of the amounts in default, to the satisfaction of respondents 2 and 3, the transfer of Registry can be effected with respect to the properties covered under Ext.P6. 5. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 and 3 to effect mutation (transfer of Registry) with respect to the properties covered under Ext.P6 and P7, if the petitioner furnishes security of other immovable property having sufficient valuation to cover Ext.P5 series requisitions. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb