Kerala High Court
Suhas R vs The Tahsildar on 30 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 9678 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 9678 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
SUHAS R.,
AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O. RAJAPPAN, RESIDING AT SURJITH NIVAS,
KANJIRAMATTAM P.O., AMBALLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY
ANIL GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE TAHSILDAR,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682312.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ALAGAPPA NAGAR, KANJOOR, AMBALLUR, ERNAKULAM-
680302.
3 THE SUB REGISTRAR,
SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM-
682314.
4 MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,
37/3453, 4TH FLOOR NOEL HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA,
PADAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. BIJURAJ U., PIN-682037.
SMT K AMMINIKUTTY, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 9678 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in title and
possession of property having an extent of 2 Ares and 13 sq. mts. falling in
Old Sy. No. 514/6 (Re-Sy. No. 572/14-2) of Amballur Village. The said
property was acquired by him on the cover of sale deed No. 1510/1992 of the
Mulanthuruthi SRO.
2. According to the petitioner, in the year 2008, arbitration
proceedings were initiated for realizing the loan amount due to the 4th
respondent. An application for attachment of the property referred to above
was filed before the District Court, Ernakulam by the 4th respondent and by
Ext.P1 order, the property was attached. Ext.P1 order would reveal that the
petition was allowed by the 1st Additional District Judge and it was ordered
that the attachment effected will be made absolute for a period of one year
within which time, the arbitration proceedings were to be completed. The
petitioner states that the entire dues were settled by the petitioner with the
4th respondent and Ext.P4 receipt was issued. At any rate, it is contended
that the order of attachment was valid only for a period of one year from
4.2.2009 and the said period has long expired. It is contended that when
2nd respondent refused to accept basic tax, the petitioner approached this
Court and by Ext.P2 judgment, this Court directed the said respondent to
accept basic tax. His grievance is that when tax receipt was issued, an
endorsement has been made that the property is the subject matter of an
attachment in Arbitration O.P.No.1195/2008. Ext.P3 is the receipt so issued.
It is further contended that though the petitioner had fully and effectively
settled all the disputes, in the encumbrance certificate issued by the 3rd
respondent, the attachment is noted. It is in the above backdrop that the
petitioner is before this Court seeking the following directions.
i). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to remove the
endorsement of Attachment Order in Arb.O.P.No.1195/2008 and
thereafter to issue receipts for the Basic Tax.
ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to incorporate
necessary entries in the Register lifting the attachment w.e.f
03.02.2009 and thereafter issue encumbrance showing the same to the
petitioner.
3. Notice was issued to the 4th respondent and the same was
served. However, none appears.
4. I have heard Sri. Joby Jacob, Pulickakudi, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
5. Ext.P1 order of the District Court, Ernakulam clearly reveals that
the attachment order was effective only for a period of one year from
4.2.2009. The said date has long expired. Furthermore, Ext.P4 receipt would
reveal that the petitioner has remitted a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- with the
4th respondent. The said fact remains undisputed. In that view of the
matter, there is no justification in marking the endorsement of attachment
effected in Arbitration O.P. No. 1195/2008 in the tax receipt or in the
encumbrance certificate.
In view of the discussion above, the petitioner is entitled to the relief
sought for in this writ petition. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent
to remove the endorsements with respect to the attachment order effected in
Arbitration O.P.No.1195/2008 and issue receipts evidencing the acceptance of
basic tax. The 3rd respondent is directed to efface the attachment noted in
the encumbrance certificate with effect from 3.2.2009 and issue fresh
encumbrance certificate to the petitioner on usual terms. The needful shall be
done by the respondents within a period of one month from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment along with
the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for further action.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
ps
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9678/2021
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 04/02/2009
IN ARB. OP NO. 1195/2008 ON THE FILES OF
THE DISTRICT JUDGE, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED
22/09/2020 IN WPC NO.17991/2020 OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
27/10/2020 ISSUED BY THE AMBALLUR VILLAGE
OFFICER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT DATED
05/04/2021 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,25,000/-
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 03/07/2020 FROM 01/01/1992 TO
30/06/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL
