IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20282 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.A.SEENA ASHRAF, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.LATE SRI.M.M.ABDUL KAREEM, KIZHAKKEKKARA NAHIYA HOUSE, VATTEKKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY NORTH P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.M.G.ANON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 542. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGOLA, PIN-683 554. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 542. 4. SPECIAL OFFICER (RR), K.S.E.B., VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 5. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1-R4 BY Sr. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SD WPC NO. 20282/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT CUM SALE DEED NO. 359/2000 P2 COPY OF THE R.R. DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT P3 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION REFUSING MUTATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE SD ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 20282 of 2011 I ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner is the owner of property covered by Ext.P1 settlement deed. She made an application for mutation, which is declined by Ext.P3, stating that revenue recovery proceedings are pending against the transfer of the property. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 2. In the judgment in Anwar M. Easa Vs. District Collector, Ernakulam [2010 (1) KLT 747], this Court has held that mutation is only effected for physical purposes and that pendency of revenue recovery proceedings is no reason to deny mutation. 3. In this case, since mutation is denied on the only ground of pendency of revenue recovery proceedings, Ext.P3 order declining the request of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Therefore, Ext.P3 will stand quashed. The W.P.(C) No.20282/2011 : 2 : first respondent is directed to effect mutation as sought for by the petitioner, without any delay. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/01/12 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge