Skip to content


Munavir Vs. the Village Officer, Marampilly Village - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantMunavir
RespondentThe Village Officer, Marampilly Village
Excerpt:
.....14810 of 2014 (a) 2 appendix petitioner(s)' exhibits : ------------------------- exhibit p1 : true copy of the sale deed dated0701.2014 exhibit p2 : true copy of the sale deeds numbers9462010 dated2402.2010, 2114/2011 dated0305.2011 of sro, perumbavoor exhibit p3 : true copies of the tax receipt of the property3in numbers exhibit p4 : true copy of encumbrance certificate4in numbers exhibit p5 : true copy of the true copy of the application for mutation submitted by the petitioner respondent(s)' exhibits: nil true copy / p a to judge a.muhamed mustaque, j.========================= w.p(c).no. 14810 of 2014 ============================ dated this the 18th day of august, 2014 judgment this writ petition is filed challenging refusal to effect mutation of the property purchased by the.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE MONDAY, THE18H DAY OF AUGUST201427TH SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 14810 of 2014 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- MUNAVIR S/O ALIYAR, MOOKADA HOUSE, MARAMPILLY VILLAGE PALLIPURAM KARA, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARAMPILLY VILLAGE P.O MARAMPILLY, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 683 540 2. TAHSILDAR KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542.

3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA68353 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM REVENUE DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION P.O.KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682030 5. SHEFEER, S/O HAMZA, UPPOOTY HOUSE, MARAMPILLY VILLAGE PALLIPPURAM KARA, MUDIKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR - 683547. R2 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SRI K C VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1808-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14810 of 2014 (A) 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED0701.2014 EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEEDS NUMBERS9462010 DATED2402.2010, 2114/2011 DATED0305.2011 OF SRO, PERUMBAVOOR EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPIES OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY3IN NUMBERS EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE4IN NUMBERS EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR MUTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL True Copy / P A to Judge A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

========================= W.P(C).No. 14810 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 18th day of August, 2014 JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition is filed challenging refusal to effect mutation of the property purchased by the petitioner covered by Ext.P1, document. On instruction, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the transfer was in violation of the provisions of Sec.26A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (for short, "the Act") and therefore it being void, revenue officials cannot act upon such transfer.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of this Court in Hamza Vs. Asst. Commissioner (2008(3) KLT180 has submitted that the petitioner is entitled for transfer of property. It is held in the above case, the transfer as such is not void. It can be a valid transfer as between the transferor and transferee. But it can be void against any claim in respect of any tax or any other sum payable by the assessee-transferor under the Act.

3. Learned Government Pleader would submit that when transfer is void, as against the State, officials under the State is not bound to effect transfer of registry as the same would impeach the very claim of void nature of the transfer. The Division Bench held W.P(C).No.14810 of 2014 2 that the document would be valid only between the parties to the transaction and not to the State. The transfer of registry is only for fiscal purpose and it will not create any right or interest of the property on which the parties claim their right, based on document. If the State has a claim against the transferee or transferor, that will not affect their right, if they are otherwise entitled against that property. Therefore, merely because the transfer of registry is effected in the revenue records, that will not defeat the rights of the State to proceed against the property. As it is noticed, the transfer of registry is only for fiscal purpose, necessarily, then the officials of the State is bound to act upon registered document executed in the name of the petitioner.

4. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to effect mutation in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 in favour of the petitioner. However it is made clear that this will be without prejudice to the rights of the State to proceed against the property under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act or under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE. Sbna/19/08/14


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //