Kerala High Court
Anu Byju vs The Village Officer on 16 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 24TH ASWINA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 24380 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
ANU BYJU, AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. LATE BYJU,
RESIDING AT PANACKAL HOUSE,
KOLLAMPARAMBIL LANE,
DESHABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR - 682017
BY ADVS.
G.HARIHARAN
PRAVEEN.H.
K.S.SMITHA
V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
BIJOY SAM GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ERNAKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE, NEAR DISTRICT COURT,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682011
2 THE TAHSILDAR
KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,
NEAR DISTRICT COURT,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682011
R BY SR.GP ADV.BIMAL K.NATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 24380 OF 2023 : 2 :
JUDGMENT
The petitioner's late husband had purchased
certain extent of property as per document
No.3471/2015 of SRO Ernakulam. The petitioner's
husband died on 22.10.2022. According to the
petitioner, though she had approached the 1 st
respondent for mutation of the aforesaid property
pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent refused to effect
transfer of registry on the ground that there is an
outstanding loan, which was availed by her husband
from the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, by
mortgaging the property. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that even though the property is
mortgaged to K.S.F.E, the 1st respondent is bound to
effect mutation unless there is specific interdiction
against mutation by any competent court. The limited
relief sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to
the 1st respondent to accept basic tax of the property
mentioned in Ext.P3 after effecting mutation in the
name of the petitioner and her son.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that
the petitioner has not produced any materials to show
that the application for mutation has been filed before
the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner will file necessary application for
mutation before the 1st respondent.
5. In the said circumstances, there will be a
direction to the petitioner to submit necessary
application for mutation before the 1 st respondent,
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment. If such an application is
received, the 1st respondent shall consider the same in
accordance with law and also taking note of the
decision of this Court reported in Joykutty Thomas v.
Village Officer, Pattuzhi South and Others [2009
(3) KLT 914]. Before a decision is taken, the petitioner,
the K.S.F.E and any other interested person shall be
heard by the 1st respondent.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SB
APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH AND DEATH CERTIFICATE
DATED 22.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE ISSUED BY THE
HEALTH INSPECTOR, GRADE-I (REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND
DEATH) MARADU MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
NO.78455316 DATED 09.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT CERTIFYING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER
AND HER SON AS THE LEGAL HEIRS AND LATE
BYJU.P.JOSE
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.5792694
DATED 30.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND BYJU.P.JOSE
RELATING TO THE PROPERTIES MENTIONED ABOVE
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE RELATING
TO THE LAND MENTIONED ABOVE ISSUED ON 23.03.2016
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF BYJU.P.JOSE
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE RELATING
TO THE PROPERTIES MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT.P3 ISSUED
ON 10.02.2016 BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM
