IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2485 of 2007()
1. JAMES JOSEPH, KALAIKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY MINISTRY OF
... Respondent
2. TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK,
3. VILLAGE OFFICER, PAYIPAD VILLAGE
For Petitioner :SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :08/10/2009
O R D E R
S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A. No.2485 of 2007
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
A.K.Basheer, J.
The appellant/petitioner applied for effecting mutation or
transfer of registry in respect of 29.87 ares of land and building
therein, situated in RS No.442/2/6 of Payipad Village,
Changanacherry Taluk, Kottayam District. However, the request
was turned down by the revenue authorities on the ground that
several cases and revenue recovery proceedings are pending against
the said property, and therefore change of mutation case be
considered only after those proceedings are over. Appellant was
served with Ext.P4 communication issued by the Village Officer in
this regard. The said communication was challenged before the
learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition.
2. The learned Single Judge after considering the matter
found that the appellant/petitioner was not entitled to get any relief,
especially since the order passed by the Tahsildar referred to in
Ext.P4 was liable to be challenged in an appeal as provided under
W.A.No.2485 of 2007
– 2 –
the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
having perused the materials available on record, we do not find any
reason to take a different view. It is evident from Ext.P4 that the
Village Officer had communicated to the appellant the order passed
by the Tahsildar on his request for change of mutation. Obviously it
is not an order passed by the Village Officer as contended by the
appellant. The appellant has not disputed before us that several
civil suits and revenue recovery proceedings are pending against the
property in question. If that be the position, the stand taken by the
revenue authorities cannot be said to be irrational or illegal.
4. In that view of the matter we do not find any reason to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ
appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
S.R.Bannurmath,
Chief Justice
A.K. Basheer,
Judge
vns