IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 23986 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- C.C.THULASIBHAI, W/O. SURENDRAKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, SANKARA MANGALAM, PALIAKKARA, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23986/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.179/2009 DT ¼/2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF the APPEAL DT 6.8.09 IS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2-2307/2009 DT 13.8.09 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPODNENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF the SALE DEED DT 5.11.2008 EXECUTED BEFORE THE SUB REGISTRAR, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE NON ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DT 12.2.2009 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 14.7.08 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.3.2009 IN WPC 3651 OF 2009 OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.07 IN WPC 26792/2007 OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.30.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVALLA UNDER RTI ACT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23986 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner purchased a property as per Ext.P4 sale deed. When she obtained Ext.P5 non encumbrance certificate, no encumbrance in respect of the property was mentioned in this document. However, when she applied for mutation, that was rejected by Ext.P1 on the ground that revenue recovery proceedings are pending. 2. She filed an appeal and that was rejected by Ext.P3. As already seen, the reason stated for rejection of her request for mutation is the pendency of the revenue recovery proceedings. 3. It is stated that the petitioner's vendor had availed of loan from the Central Bank of India and had committed default. It is stated that the Bank initiated recovery proceedings against the defaulter, which is the reason stated in Exts.P1 and P3. 4. Petitioner also submits that when recovery proceedings were initiated, the vendor applied to the Government and had obtained Ext.P6 order, enabling him to discharge the liability in 45 instalments and according to her, remittances is WPC No. 23986/09 :2 : being made also. It is therefore stated that the rejection for effecting mutation is illegal. 5. Learned Government Pleader relied on the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules and also the Revenue Recovery Act and contended that since the property was transferred after the amount due to the Bank had fallen due, the transfer in favour of the petitioner is not binding on the Government and therefore mutation cannot be effected. 6. However, even if mutation is effected in pursuance to the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules, such mutation can have no impact either on the proceedings initiated by the Government nor will it improve the title of the petitioner over the property in question. 7. In case if the provisions of Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act are attracted to the transfer in question, even if mutation is effected in favour of the petitioner, the claim of the respondents will remain unaffected. For these reasons and also as there is no prohibition either in the Revenue Recovery Act or the Transfer of Registry Rules against effecting mutation in respect of a property in relation to which revenue recovery WPC No. 23986/09 :3 : proceedings are pending, I am inclined to think that the view taken in Exts.P1 and P3 is erroneous. 8. Therefore, I set aside Exts.P1 and P3 and direct the respondents to effect mutation in favour of the petitioner. It is clarified that the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner will not in any manner affect the claim of the respondents to continue revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner's property. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp