IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21421 of 2006(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BINDHU JOY, W/O.JOY, AGED 33, CHULLI HOUSE, AIMURY KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN PERUMBAVOOR, SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.T. MUHAMOOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.21421/2006-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4493 DTD. 16/08/04. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A7-13948/04 DTD. 28/10/04 ISSUED BY THE R.4. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. LDS.6724/05/A2 DTD. 03/03/05 PASSED BY R.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. ON 15/10/05. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.D6-2681/04 DTD. 01/12/04 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED TO EXHIBIT P5 BY THE PETITIONER ON 22/12/2004. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT ORDER ISSUED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER TO THE TRANSFEROR OF EXT.P.1. BEARING NO. D6-2681/04 DTD. 01/12/04. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. ON 31/01/06. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).5424/05 DTD 21/03/06. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS. 52798/05/B9 ON 05/07/06. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.21421/2006-A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P10 order passed by the District Collector rejecting a revision petition. 2. The petitioner filed an application under the Transfer of Registry Rules in respect of 17.93 ares of property in Re-survey No.56/11/3 in Block No.9 of Koovappady Village. The same was rejected by the Tahsildar on the ground that both the vendor and the transferee are defaulters under the Revenue Recovery Act. The said order was upheld by the Revenue Divisional Officer also. 3. Basically, the order Ext.P10 is passed after finding that the transaction is effected after the revenue recovery notice was received. It appears that there was an attachment also in respect of the property. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken in Ext.P10 cannot be W.P.(C). No.21421/2006 -:2:- supported. In ground 'G' of the writ petition it is stated that efforts are being taken to clear the liability towards the Khadi Board. 5. There is nothing wrong in Ext.P10 order and the orders passed by the authorities below whereby the application under the Transfer of Registry Rules were rejected. Only if the liabilities are cleared either by the vendor or by the petitioner, anything further can be done in the matter. It is open to the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned after clearing the liabilities. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms