IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37504 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, KONNI BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 2. MR. UTHAMAN R., S/O. RAMASWAMY, AYYAPPA SADANAM, MARUR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. MR. AYYAPPAN R., S/O. RAMASWAMY, AYYAPPA SADANAM, MARUR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. MR. KUMARESH BABU, S/O. RAMASWAMY, AYYAPPA SADANAM, MARUR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOZHENCHERRY - 689 641. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KONNI VILLAGE OFFICE, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, 689 691. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 37505 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C).Nos.37504 & 37505 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- A nationalised Bank along with others are the petitioners in both these cases. The first petitioner Bank had sold immovable property in auction sale in favour of other petitioners, by virtue of proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Ext.P1 in both these cases are the sale certificates issued, on confirmation of the sale in question. Ext.P1 Sale Certificates were registered with the Sub Registrar Office concerned. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that, on the basis of Ext.P1 sale, when the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent for effecting mutation under the Transfer of Registry Rules, the same was refused on issuing Ext.P2 letter. It is revealed from Ext.P2 that the refusal is on the ground that there are court attachments and revenue recovery attachments with respect to the property in question. 3. Contention of the petitioners is that, the refusal for W.P.(C).37504 & 37505/10 -2- effecting mutation assigning the reason of attachments is not legally valid. It is contended that going by the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, there is no impediment in effecting mutation, even if there is any attachment existing in the property in question. It is further contended that the mutation if effected will not have impact either on the proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act or on any court attachment. It is the contention that the effect of mutation will not in any manner improve the title of the vendee over the property. Hence the refusal is unsustainable, is the contention. 4. I notice that the issue stands covered by a decision of this court in Thulasibhai C.C. Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2010 (4) KHC 142. A learned Judge of this court observed that even if mutation is effected in pursuance to the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules, it will not have any impact either on the proceedings initiated by the Government nor will it improve the title of the petitioner over the property in question. It is further held that if the provisions of Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act are attracted to the transfer in question, inspite of such mutation the revenue recovery steps will remain unaffected. In my view, the dictum laid therein is squarely applicable on the facts of these cases. It is clear that the first petitioner Bank had already issued sale certificates and W.P.(C).37504 & 37505/10 -3- those certificates were got registered in favour of the other petitioners. Under such circumstances the petitioners, who had purchased the land, should not be deprived of its beneficial enjoyment by effecting mutation and permitting payment of land tax. Needless to say that the charge or liability if any attached to the land will continue despite such mutation being effected. 5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the Government is proposing to challenge the decision cited supra in a writ appeal. Of course, it goes without saying that if the legal issue is reversed by any competent court, the respondents will be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in these cases also. 6. Under the above circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed and Ext.P2 proceedings are hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to allow mutation by effecting necessary endorsements in the Land Register on the basis of applications submitted by the petitioners, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb