IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33067 of 2010(G)
1. PRAKASH KOSHY BENJAMIN,ALPINE HOMES,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PATHANAMTHITTA.
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR,THIRUVALLA TALUK,
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KUTTAPUZHA VILLAGE,
4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,R.R.TALUK OFFICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :22/11/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.33067 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
———————-
Petitioner is a Building Contractor, registered under the
provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act).
With respect to assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, Ext.P1
order of penalty and Ext.P2 order of assessment were issued
against the petitioner. It is stated that appeals filed against
Ext.P1 and P2 are pending disposal before the Sales Tax
Appellate Tribunal as well as before the Deputy Commissioner
(Appeals), respectively. Ext.P3 and P4 are the interim orders
passed by the appellate Tribunal as well as the Deputy
Commissioner against realisation of amounts in dispute.
According to the petitioner, he had already complied with the
conditions stipulated in Ext.P3 and P4.
2. It is mentioned that with respect to Ext.P1 and P2
orders, recovery steps were initiated on an earlier occasion by
issuing Ext.P5 series demand notices. In the meanwhile, the
petitioner had sold an extent of 25.29 Ares of land as per Ext.P7
sale deed executed on 24.6.2010. Petitioner is intending to sell
remaining properties, out of the land developed by him as part
of his business activities. Grievance of the petitioner is that the
W.P.(C).33067/10-G -2-
3rd respondent Village Officer is refusing to effect mutation in the
Registry of Land Records with respect to property already sold
by the petitioner. The petitioner is also prevented from selling
the remaining property which he had already developed, which
is covered under Ext.P6 tax receipt.
3. According to the petitioner, the refusal on the part of
the 3rd respondent in effecting mutation on the ground that
revenue recovery steps are pending, is absolutely illegal and
without any basis. There is no provision in the Kerala Revenue
Recovery Act, 1968 or in the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966,
enabling refusal of mutation on the ground that revenue
recovery steps are pending. In this regard the petitioner relies
on a decision of this court in Thulasibhai Vs. State of Kerala
(2010 (4) KLT 215), in which it is held that revenue recovery
steps against the vendor is no reason to deny transfer of Registry
in the name of the purchasers of the property. Therefore the
petitioner seeks direction against respondents 1 to 3 to effect
transfer of Registry of the property covered under Ext.P6 tax
receipt. Petitioner inter alia seeks declaration to the effect that,
the revenue recovery steps initiated under Ext.P5 series notices
will not stand in the way of purchasers of the properties in
getting mutation effected.
4. The question mooted for consideration is slightly
different from the issue decided in the ruling cited above. If a
W.P.(C).33067/10-G -3-
person is in default of public revenue and if the revenue recovery
steps are already initiated, any subsequent transfer will be
invalid in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Revenue
Recovery Act. Even though there is no specific provision
restraining transfer of Registry, the question remains as to
whether the authority under the Revenue Recovery Act shall
permit such transfer being effected, after knowing very well that
revenue recovery steps are pending against the owner of the
property who is the defaulter. However, I am not entering upon
any finding regarding that issue, in this writ petition, since the
petitioner is seeking an alternative relief on the basis of an offer
that he will furnish security of other immovable property having
sufficient valuation. I am of the view that if the petitioner
furnishes security of immovable property having equivalent
valuation of the amounts in default, to the satisfaction of
respondents 2 and 3, the transfer of Registry can be effected
with respect to the properties covered under Ext.P6.
5. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the
respondents 2 and 3 to effect mutation (transfer of Registry) with
respect to the properties covered under Ext.P6 and P7, if the
petitioner furnishes security of other immovable property having
sufficient valuation to cover Ext.P5 series requisitions.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb