Surya Beegom K.J vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17938 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 10761 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          SURYA BEEGOM K.J., AGED 57 YEARS,
          W/O. SALEEM A, DILDAAR, KADAKKAD SOUTH,
          PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PANDALAM P.O,
          PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 501.

          BY ADVS.
          J.RAMKUMAR
          SRI.M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN
          SHRI.KRUSCH P.A



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE STATE OF KERALA,
          DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, REVENUE COMPLEX,
          PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 33,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

    2     VILLAGE OFFICER,
          KURAMBALA VILLAGE, PANDALAM,
          PATHANAMTHITTA PIN - 689 501.

          BY ADV.SMT.RESMITHA RAMACHANDRAN, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 10761 OF 2021
                              -2-

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who claims to have purchased

an extent of 4.85 Ares in Survey No.265/4/4-3

(Resurvey No.403/18) in Kurambala Village, in

Adoor Taluk, Pathanamthitta, has approached this

Court accusing the 2nd respondent of not issuing

orders on her application for Transfer of Registry

with respect to it in her name, based on Ext.P1

sale deed.

2. The petitioner says that the sole reason

stated by the 2nd respondent in refusing to accede

to her request is that there is an order of

attachment over the property, issued by the Sub

Court, Pathanamthitta. She asserts that even if

there is such an attachment, the 2nd respondent

cannot refuse her application for Transfer of

Registry and therefore, pleads that this Writ

Petition be ordered as prayed for. WP(C) NO. 10761 OF 2021

3. I have heard Sri.M.A.Joseph Manavalan -

learned counsel for the petitioner and

Smt.Resmitha Ramachandran - learned Government

Pleader, appearing on behalf of the official

respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner -

Sri.M.A.Joseph Manavalan, added to the afore

submissions by saying that, at the time when

Ext.P1 Sale Deed was executed in favour of his

client, there was no order of attachment by the

Sub Court, Pathanamthitta, as is limpid from

Ext.P2. He pointed out that Ext.P2 order was

issued only on 10.03.2021; while Ext.P1 was

executed on 09.02.2021. He, therefore,

reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be

allowed, arguing that a subsequent attachment will

not stand in the way of the 2 nd respondent

considering his client's application for Transfer WP(C) NO. 10761 OF 2021

of Registry.

5. Smt.Resmitha Ramachandran - learned

Government Pleader, however, submitted that at the

time when the application for Transfer of Registry

was presented by the petitioner before the 2nd

respondent, the order of attachment by the Sub

Court, Pathanamthitta, had come into effect. She

submitted that, therefore, unless the petitioner

is able to have the same vacated, the 2 nd

respondent is incapacitated from considering her

application for mutation of the property in her

name.

6. Though I find some force in the

submissions of learned Government Pleader as

afore, the fact remains that the attachment

ordered by Sub Court, Pathanamthitta, does not

relate to any tax or other Revenue liability on

the part of the petitioner or her predecessor-in-

interest. The attachment, of course, relates to a WP(C) NO. 10761 OF 2021

private claim made by certain third parties and

obviously, therefore, the said liability runs with

the property, whether the petitioner purchases it

or otherwise.

7. Of course, the petitioner may have a case

that the order of attachment came after Ext.P1 had

been executed, but this is a matter that she will

have to take appropriately before the Sub Court,

Pathanamthitta and not before this Court or before

the 2nd respondent.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and

direct the 2nd respondent to consider the

application of the petitioner for Transfer of

Registry of the property in question and allow the

same, if there are no other legal impediment,

dehors Ext.P2 order of attachment by the Sub

Court, Pathanamthitta; however, recording clearly

that such an attachment subsists. This shall be

done by the 2nd respondent as expeditiously as is WP(C) NO. 10761 OF 2021

possible, but not later than two weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, I leave full liberty to the

petitioner to approach the Sub Court,

Pathanamthitta, for having Ext.P2 vacated; and if

the petitioner is able to obtain such orders, then

she will be at liberty to produce it before the

competent Authorities for having the entry of

attachment in the revenue records effaced, with

respect to the property in question.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 10761 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10761/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.

300/2021 OF PANDALAM SRO

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-03-

2021 IN I.A NO. 2/2021 IN LAR NO. 2/2007 OF THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE