IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18860 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KURIAKOSE, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, SANGOORIKKAL, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, POONITHURA. 4. TESSY JOSEPH, T.C.NO.35/1842-A, KANNOTH HOUSE, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 682 025. 5. TAHSILDAR 9RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), S.T.O., SPECIAL CIRCLE-1, KOCHI-15. ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL FOR R4 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S RAMESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 18860 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be the owner of certain properties. The 4th respondent disputes the same. The petitioner submitted an application for mutation. That is not being properly considered on the ground that the property is subject matter of attachment proceedings for realisation of arrears of sales tax, which is the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition. He seeks the following reliefs: “(i) To call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P13 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to effect mutation in the revenue records by entering the name of the petitioner as the owner of the property covered by Ext. P1 sale deed and also to accept land tax in the name of the petitioner; (ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction also may be granted to meet out justice under the circumstances of the above case. (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the additional 6th respondent to intimate the additional 5th respondent about the present liability of the 4th respondent and also to direct the said authority to withhold the revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner's properties.” 2. The petitioner earlier approached this Court and obtained Ext. P12 judgment in which I had directed as follows: “If by proceedings against other properties of the 4th respondent the amounts due are recovered in full, the respondents 1 to 3 shall see that mutation of the properties covered by Ext. P1 is effected in favour of the petitioner, if there are no other objections for the same. If there is any stay of recovery from the 4th respondent or if the amounts recovered are not sufficient to satisfy the liability no such mutation shall be effected and this property also shall be proceeded against.” 3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions, submits that the entire amounts due from the original owners of the property W.P.C. No. 18860/2009 -: 2 :- to the Government have been completely recovered by resort to revenue recovery proceedings and therefore the Government has no claim in respect of the property any more. That being so, there cannot be any impediment for the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for mutation. But the 4th respondent strongly objects to the same on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to such mutation. 4. I am not inclined to go into the rival claims of the petitioner and the 4th respondent in this writ petition. Now that the petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent for mutation, it is for the 2nd respondent to consider every aspect of the matter and to pass orders in the application for mutation, after hearing both parties. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application for mutation submitted by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 4th respondent points out that a suit is pending in respect of the property between the 4th respondent and the petitioner. It would be open to the 4th respondent to point out to the 2nd respondent the said fact and advance arguments on the basis of the same, which shall also be considered by the 2nd respondent. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.