IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31619 of 2008(L) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- N.D.JOSEPH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.DANIEL, RESIDING AT NELLIMATTATHIL HOUSE, THIRUVAMKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEPAN SRI.DEEPAK T.NEDUNGADAN SMT.P.SUMITHRA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY. 5. THE SUB REGISTRAR, CHANGANACHERRY SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY P.O. 6. MR.ANIL MENON, S/O.LATE ARAVINDAKSHA MENON, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, THRIPUNITHURA BHAVAN, PUZHAVATH MURIYIL, CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY P.O KOTTAYAM DIST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 31619 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner purchased an extent of 1 Hector 60 Ares of land under Exhibit P1 sale deed dated 3.5.2004. Exhibit P1 sale deed was executed by the 6th respondent along with his mother and sister. Petitioner submits that he was put in possession of the property pursuant to Exhibit P1. Mutation was effected. Tax was paid. But later, it was realized that a portion of the property had been under attachment by the State for reaslisation of certain abkari dues from the 6th respondent, one of the vendors of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had no knowledge about it. By Exhibit P5 order the 3rd respondent cancelled the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner has preferred Exhibit P6 appeal in this regard before the 2nd respondent appellate authority. W.P ( C) No. 31619 of 2008 2 2. In the meanwhile, petitioner has pointed out certain other properties belonging to his vendor and prays that the State may be directed to proceed against the other properties standing in the name of the 6th respondent and release the attachment over the property conveyed to the petitioner under Exhibit P1 sale deed. I am not inclined to accept the submission of the petitioner. If an attachment had been effected over the property belonging to the vendor of the petitioner prior to Exhibit P1 sale deed , obviously, the petitioner will take the property only subject to such attachment. It is open to the petitioner to prosecute an appeal against the order canceling the mutation. It is also open to the petitioner to approach the revenue authorities with an offer to settle the liability, if any, incurred by his vendor as a measure of redeeming the property in its entirety and obtain clean title to the same. In such an event, any request made by the petitioner may be considered by the revenue authorities, in accordance with law and any right which may accrue in favour of the petitioner vis-à-vis the 6th respondent will also have to be W.P ( C) No. 31619 of 2008 3 adjudicated by a competent authority. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 31619 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No. 31619 of 2008 5