S.Rafeeka vs District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 23107 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

         WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943

                               WP(C) NO. 25741 OF 2021

PETITIONER:

               S.RAFEEKA
               AGED 42 YEARS
               D/O. MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, TC 49/90-1, RAFEEKA MANZIL,
               KAMALESWARAM, MANACADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

               BY ADVS.
               R.SUNIL KUMAR
               A.SALINI LAL



RESPONDENTS:

     1         DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043

     2         THASILDAR,
               CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 304

     3         VILLAGE OFFICER,
               KARAVARAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KARAVARAM , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
               605

     4         SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) (NH),
               OFFICE OF DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LA NH, COLLECTORATE,
               KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043


OTHER PRESENT:

               SR.GP - SMT AMMINIKKUTTY




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2021,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 25741 OF 2021

                                    2




                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court asserting that he is

the owner in possession of the property involved in this case and

seeking a direction to the respondents to effect transfer of Registry

of the same in his name, de hors an order of revenue recovery

attachment on it.

2. Sri.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, argued that even if there is an order of attachment on

the property, there is no legal inhibition in the transfer of Registry

of the same in his client's name and that this has been settled by

this Court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of

judments.

3. As an alternative submission, Sri.Sunil Kumar submitted

that, against the Revenue Recovery attachment, his client has

already moved a statutory appeal in terms of the liberty granted to

him by this Court through Ext.P8 judgment and that hearing of the

same has been completed and final orders are awaited. He,

therefore, prayed that his client may be given some time to produce

the documents as mentioned in Ext.P12 communication, so that she

can then convince the Special Tahsildar about the tenability of his WP(C) NO. 25741 OF 2021

client's case.

4. Smt.K.Amminikutty, learned Senior Government Pleader,

in response, submitted that the 2 nd respondent - Tahsildar, has been

incapacitated from effecting transfer of Registry in favour of the

petitioner on account of the admitted pendency of the revenue

recovery attachment over the property. She submitted that,

however, with respect to the request of the petitioner for further

time to produce the documents as mentioned in Ext.P12, she will

not stand in the way of this Court passing appropriate orders.

5. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is without

doubt that petitioner has approached this Court with two prayers:

namely, that she be given some more time to produce the

documents mentioned in Ext.P12 and that the 2 nd respondent be

directed to effect transfer of Registry in her name de hors the

revenue recovery attachment on the property.

6. As far as the 1st prayer of the petitioner for time to

produce the documents in Ext.P12 is concerned, I deem it

appropriate to grant her four months, since it is not opposed by the

learned Senior Government Pleader; while, as regards the other

prayer for transfer of Registry of the property de hors the order of

attachment is concerned, I leave it to the 2 nd respondent - Tahsildar WP(C) NO. 25741 OF 2021

to consider the same, after hearing the petitioner, particularly

taking into account her contention that even if such an attachment

is in effect, the transfer of Registry is not inhibited, since same

runs with the property. The petitioner can move the 2 nd respondent

for this purpose within a period of one week and the said Authority

will take a decision thereon within a period of two weeks thereafter

Needless to say, if the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar accedes to

the request of the petitioner for transfer of Registry of the property

de hors the order of attachment, then, until it is vacated in terms of

law, same will continue to have effect on the property and the

petitioner will be obligated to abide by the same in future.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

SD/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp WP(C) NO. 25741 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25741/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NUMBER 189/2014 OF NAVAYIKULAM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF RD.5400/- DATED 19/9/2000

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT DATED 7.9.2015 ISSUED BY THASILDAR

Exhibit P4 COPY O THE RECEIPTS DATED 19.9.15, 19.10.15, 21.11.15

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.7.2018 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PANCHAYAT AUTHORITIES DATED 12.10.2018

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13.11.19 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.34594/2019 DATED 17.12.19

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE RDO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30.12.19

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONERS FATHER ISSUED ON 19.7.21

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL NO.37/2016 OF NAVAYIKULAM SRO DATED 20.4.16

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.8.2021 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.4.20