IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25416 of 2010(B) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. REVEENDRAN, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNA PANICKER AGED 39 YEARS, CHALANUTHALACKAL VEEDU, PERINGAMALA, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUNI,D/O.SUDHARMA, AGED 30, RESIDING AT -DO-DO- BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE OFFICE,KALLIYOOR P.O., 695 042 4. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, VALLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. - 695 522 R1-3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 25416/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 12/05/2003. P2: COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 02/01/2009. P3: COPY OF INFORMATION DATED 13/03/2010. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 25416 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioners, parents of the second petitioner executed Ext.P1 settlement deed, settling in their favour, 5 cents of property with a tile roofed building comprised in Re-survey No.461/6 of Kalliyoor Village. After the settlement deed was executed, they made an application for getting the property mutated in their favour. However, respondents 2 and 3 refused to mutate the property on the basis that a possession certificate in respect of the property was issued prior to the execution of Ext.P1 and that the petitioners did not produce a non-liability certificate. It is in this circumstance, this writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that prior to Ext.P1, second petitioner had availed of an employment loan from the 4th respondent under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana Scheme for setting up a weaving unit and the possession certificate obtained by her father was only to show that they had property to set up the industrial unit. It is the second petitioner's case that the W.P.(C) NO. 25416 OF 2010 2 scheme did not require any collateral security and that the property was also not mortgaged to the bank. On this basis it is contended that the action of the respondent declining to effect mutation as sought for by the petitioners is illegal. 3. The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent shows that according to him, parents of the second petitioner had availed a loan on the strength of a possession certificate issued. It is therefore, that he asked for production of non liability certificate. According to him, he was empowered to do so, in view of Rule 7(2) (ii) of the Transfer of Registry Rules. 4. Irrespective of whether it was the second petitioner or her parents, who availed the loan, it s submitted that the loan was under Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana Scheme. Ext.P3 reply given by the bank, to a request made under the Right to Information Act shows that for loans granted under the said scheme, there was no necessity to furnish any security. That apart, it is also the specific case of the petitioners that property was not mortgaged to the bank and second respondent also has no case otherwise. If that be so, since no liability has been W.P.(C) NO. 25416 OF 2010 3 incurred on the property, there arise no question requiring production of any non-liability certificate. Even otherwise since effect of mutation is only for fiscal purposes and if mutation has been effected in favour of the petitioners that will not effect liability, if any, incurred on the property. Therefore, there was no justification for not acting upon the application made by the petitioner for effecting mutation of the property covered by Ext.P1 in their favour. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 and 3 to effect mutation of the property covered by Ext.P1, settlement deed in accordance with the provisions Transfer of Registry Rules in the name of petitioners as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. ln