IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 29995 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MOHANAN N.V, AGED 68 YEARS S/O.VELAPPAKUTTY, NEDIYEDATH HOUSE, KUNDALIYUR PO, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR CHAVAKKAD THRISSUR PIN 680 506. 2. VILLAGE OFFICE, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 101. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29995/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY ATTESTED AND REGISTERED IN THE CONSULATE OF INDIA AT DUBAI. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2338/2006 DT 15.11.2006. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.326/2009 DT 16.2.2009. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REIPT DT 11.3.2009. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DT 11.3.2009. EXT.P5(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 11.3.2009. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.776/2009 DT 20.4.2009. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.832/2010 DT 5.5.2010. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2009(2) KHC EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY ON 9.2.2007. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.9.2010 OF THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR CHAVAKKAD. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29995 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's complaint is that based on Ext.P7 title deed, application was tendered to the 1st respondent for effecting mutation of the property in his favour. It is stated that the application was not accepted and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that it is because of the family dispute between the transferor and his wife, which is now pending before the Family Court, Trichur and on account of a doubt that the original landlord of the property had land in excess of the ceiling limit fixed under the Kerala Land Reforms Act that the respondents did not accept the application under the Transfer of Registry Rules. 3. In my view, both the aforesaid objections are unsustainable. Even if it is assumed that the original landlord had excess land, the fact that the mutation is effected will not in any manner prevent the respondents from proceeding against the land if it is otherwise liable to be proceeded against. The dispute WPC No. 29995/10 :2 : that is pending in the Family Court also cannot have any relevance as far as mutation is concerned. This is all the more so for the reason that mutation is effected only for fiscal purposes and cannot have any impact on the title to the property. 4. Therefore, Ext.P10 order issued by the 1st respondent is only to be quashed and I do so. It is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to make his application for mutation of the property covered by Ext.P7 document, in which event, the 1st respondent will accept the same and deal with the application in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp