IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35143 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THANKAM, D/O.SOMAN, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, NEDUNKANDA, VAKKOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OTTOOR VILLAGE, OTTOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SALES TAX OFFICE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 5. D.S.PRADEEP, MRIDULA SADANAM, VADASSERIKONAM (PO), CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY SPL.GP SRI.K.B.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).35143/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner purchased a parcel of land from the fifth respondent as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 8.2.2005. Thereupon mutation was effected in the revenue records. While matters stood thus, the second respondent issued Ext.P3 notice dated 22.7.2009 informing the petitioner that the transfer effected by the fifth respondent is liable to be invalidated for the reason that it is in violation of Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. The petitioner was called upon to show cause why the transfer effected in his favour should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply. The Tahsildar thereafter passed Ext.P11 order cancelling the transfer of registry effected in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed Ext.P13 appeal under Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules before the District Collector accompanied by Ext.P14 petition for stay of collection of the sales tax demanded in Exts.P5 to P9 orders. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P11 order passed by the second respondent and also Ext.P15 memo whereby his lands were attached under the W.P.(C).35143/2009 2 provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. In the alternative, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, to consider Ext.P13 appeal and Ext.P14 stay petition and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court and to stay the implementation of Ext.P11 order and further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P15 notice. 2. The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that the transfer of registry effected in favour of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 sale deed executed by the fifth respondent has been cancelled on the ground that the fifth respondent, who is the partner of a firm which is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act/Value Added Tax Act had transferred the lands after the liability to pay tax arose. Ext.P1 sale deed is dated 8.2.2005. The partnership firm of which the fifth respondent is a partner was an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act even before that date. It was for the said reason that the Tahsildar invoked Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and cancelled the transfer of registry effected in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by Ext.P11, the petitioner has filed Ext.P13 appeal under Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, W.P.(C).35143/2009 3 Thiruvananthapuram. Along with Ext.P13 appeal, he has filed Ext.P14 stay petition seeking stay of operation of Ext.P11 and also the proceedings initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Though under Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, an appeal lies before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot stay recovery of the sales tax due from the fifth respondent and other persons of the firm. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek a stay of recovery of the sales tax due from the fifth respondent and other partners. However, as the petitioner has invoked the appellate remedy available to him under Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, I am of the opinion that the Revenue Divisional Officer should take steps to dispose of the said appeal expeditiously. In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P13 appeal and pass orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces before the first respondent or the first respondent receives a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs