IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13224 of 2011(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. TREESA, AGED 80 YEARS, D/O. RAPHEL, NEDUNILATH HOUSE, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. EMILY, AGED 76 YEARS, D/O. RAPHEL, NEDUNILATH HOUSE, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR, SMT.V.SHYLAJA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU PIN-682 030. 2. THE THAHSILDAR, KANAYANOOR TALUK, THALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARADU VILLAGE, MARADU, PIN-682 304. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 13224 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.R.P. NO.337/2009 DATED 22/02/2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No . 13224 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 14th June , 2011 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioners, as projected in this writ petitioner, is that, in spite of substantiating the title of the petitioners before the respondents, the request of the petitioners to effect the mutation and to accept the basic in respect of the property covered by Ext. P2 is not acceded by the respondents. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions submits that, the only impediment to accede to the request of the petitioner is the attachment ordered by the Civil Court over the property in question. 3. The law has already been declared by this Court as per the decision reported in Joseph Kurian Vs. Village Officer (2010 (3) KLT 251) , holding that attachment over the property, cannot be a bar for effecting the 'mutation' and for accepting the basic tax as per the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. In the said circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 and 3 to take necessary steps for effecting W.P. (C) No. 13224 of 2011 : 2 : mutation in respect of the property covered by Ext. P2 and to accept the basic tax from the petitioner, if 'attachment' over the property alone is the reason for not acceding to the request of the petitioners. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge