Gigi Sebastian vs Village Officer

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

The petitioners purchased property having an extent of 10.12 Ares in Re.Sy.No.128/3-1 in Thundanganad, Muttom Village, Thodupuzha Taluk from the 3rd respondent. The title deed is Ext.P2. After execution of Ext.P2, the petitioners have approached the 1st respondent for effecting mutation of the property based on Ext.P2. According to the petitioners, no action was taken by the Village Officer/1st respondent on their application and informed them that there exists an attachment in respect of the property and therefore mutation cannot be effected. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court, to give a direction to the 1st respondent to effect mutation of the property covered by Ext.P2 in their name.

I have heard Smt. Karthika Maria, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Rajeev Jyothish George, the learned Government Pleader.

Ext.P2 would show that the petitioners have acquired title over the property. Ext.P3 tax receipt would show that the 3rd respondent has paid land tax in respect of the property. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the property has been attached by the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Ernakulam in O.P.No.657/2014. According to the petitioners, no such attachment is pending. The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Ext.P1 Encumbrance Certificate. It would show that no such attachment is pending. No materials have been produced by either side to prove whether any attachment is pending in respect of the property or not. The question regarding attachment of the property is not a relevant criteria for effecting mutation of the property. Hence, without expressing any opinion as to the allegation that there exists attachment in respect of the property, the 1st respondent is directed to effect mutation of the property covered by Ext.P2 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of.