Mr.S.Chandramany vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 491 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 491 Ker
Judgement Date : 7 January, 2021

Kerala High Court

Mr.S.Chandramany vs The District Collector on 7 January, 2021

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

  THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA,
                           1942

                  WP(C).No.24853 OF 2020(F)


PETITIONER :

             MR.S.CHANDRAMANY,AGED 56 YEARS
             S.SREEDHARAN,RESIDING AT THAVOOTTU
             VEEDU,THRIKKARUVA PANCHAYAT,
             THRIKKARUVA NAGAR,PRAKKULAM,
             P.O.KOLLAM-691602.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)
             SMT.V.BEENA

RESPONDENTS:

     1       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
             COLLECTORATE,KOLLAM-691013.

     2       THE TAHASILDAR(RR),
             TALUK OFFICE,KOLLAM-691001.

     3       VILLAGE OFFICER,
             KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE,KOLLAM-691004.

     4       AUTHORISED OFFICER,
             STATE BANK OF INDIA,PALARIVATTOM,
             EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM-682024.

     5       THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICER,
             KILIKOLLOOR,KOLLAM-691004.

             SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP           FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME           DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                -2-
WP(C).No.24853 OF 2020(F)



                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the auction purchaser of two items

of property, namely, 5.40 Ares (13.34 cents) along with a

residential building situated in old survey No.3627/6 in Re-

survey No.690/15 in Block No.15 of Mangad Village; and 3.20

Ares (7.90 cents) along with a building situated in old Survey

No.5612A in Re-survey No.897 in Block No.15 of Kilikolloor

Village, from the 4th respondent Bank under the provisions of

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, has filed this writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking

a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to effect

mutation of the property purchased in auction and to receive

the property tax. The petitioner has also sought for an order

directing the 5th respondent Sub Registrar to remove the

adverse entries in the relevant registers regarding the

revenue recovery proceedings against the secured asset

subsequent to the creation of mortgage.

2. On 13.11.2020, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to

WP(C).No.24853 OF 2020(F)

get instructions.

3. On 30.11.2020, when this writ petition came up for

consideration, this Court passed the following order;

"The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of specific directions issued by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment, the 3rd respondent has refused to accept property tax on the ground that the directions were issued only to the Village Officer, Mangad Village.

2. Paragraph Nos. 4 to 6 of the judgment dated 22.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.27132/2018 is extracted below for easy reference.

"4. I reckon earlier the Sub Registrar refused to register on the same ground: pending revenue proceedings. This Court through Ext.P4 judgment ruled against that objection. Strangely, even the 3rd respondent, the Village Officer, once again takes the same plea.

5. Through a catena of judgments, this Court has held that the subsequent attachments over a mortgaged property would have no impact. Still the revenue authorities persist with their objections. All through, in every writ petition, these revenue officials, beginning from the District Collector to the Village Officer, are parties. Despite that, the objections continue unabated.

6. Before interdicting a citizen's right to property, the authorities ought to be attentive. Faced with any doubt about the relief a person seeks, say for registration or paying the tax, the authorities should not routinely reject that request. Instead, the authorities, I hope, will at least consult the Government Pleaders, seek legal opinion, and act on it. Here, I reckon that the 3rd respondent's objection

WP(C).No.24853 OF 2020(F)

cannot be sustained and it is overruled. As a result, Ext.P7 is set aside. "

3. I am of the considered opinion that if what is submitted by the petitioner is true, the 3 rd respondent herein is liable to be proceeded against for contempt. The observations of this Court in paragraph Nos. 4 to 6 of Ext.P1 judgment were equally applicable to the Village Officer, Mangad and to the Village Officer, Kilikollur.

4. The learned Government Pleader shall get specific instructions from the 3rd respondent as to why he failed to abide by the directions issued by this Court."

4. On 01.12.2020, the learned Government Pleader,

on instructions, submitted that the assertions made in the writ

petition are not fully correct and that, pursuant to the

direction contained in Ext.P1 judgment, the Village Officer has

effected mutation and has permitted the petitioner to pay

basic tax as well and this was done in the year 2018 itself.

The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to get

instructions.

5. Today, when the case is taken up for consideration,

the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while

effecting mutation, the liability of the prior owner is also

mentioned in the basic tax receipt, which is not under