IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25385 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MAHEEN, S/O.ABDUL REHUMAN PARAVILAKATH VEEDU, TC.5/174,NEW T.C., 21/189 PPEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADDL.TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUDAPPANNAKKUNNU VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).25385/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Seeking partition of the property having an extent of 4.63 ares in survey No.20 of Kudappanakkunnu Village which originally belonged to the petitioner’s father, Abdul Rehman, petitioner instituted O.S.No.680/2001 before the Principal Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Court passed the preliminary decree on 20.9.2006. The plaintiff filed I.A.10398/2006 for passing the final decree. The parties entered into a compromise and the Court passed the final decree in terms of the compromise. As is evidenced from Ext.P1, learned Munsiff called upon the petitioners to produce non judicial stamp papers. According to the petitioner, stamp paper having the value of Rs.1,000/- was produced before the Court. The final decree was engrossed in the non judicial stamp paper and then forwarded to the Sub Registrar for registration. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document was thereafter registered and he then sought for mutation in respect of the property which was allotted W.P.(C).25385/2008 2 to him. Ext.P4 is the application pending in this regard. The grievance of the petitioner is that mutation is not being effected by the competent authority namely the Village Officer, the third respondent. Hence the writ petition. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the stamp duty levied on the document in question was inadequate and it is therefore that the Village Officer has, apparently taking note of the inadequacy of the stamp paper, declined to effect mutation. Once the document is registered, mutation should normally fall especially when the property involved was one which was a subject matter of a partition suit, as there is no dispute as regards the title of the property. But any public officer, coming across the document which he considers as inadequately stamped, is entitled to take steps under the Stamp Act for impounding the document. But further steps in pursuance to the actual registration of the document including mutation and collection of basic tax cannot be prolonged unnecessarily. W.P.(C).25385/2008 3 4. In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (i). Third respondent shall take up Ext.P4 and if he is of the opinion that the document, which was presented before him seeking mutation, is inadequately stamped, then he shall take steps in accordance with the provisions of the Stamp Act and cause a notice to be issued in that regard to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (ii). If proceedings under the Stamp Act are taken for levy and collection of deficit stamp duty, then subject, of course, to hearing the objections of the petitioner, such proceedings shall be completed within two months thereafter. Once such proceedings are completed, the application for mutation shall be dealt with under the provisions of the Transfer and Registry, without any further delay. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs