Mohanan N.V. vs The Additional Tahsildar and Village Office

Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner''s complaint is that based on Ext. P7 title deed, application was tendered to the 1st Respondent for effecting mutation of the property in his favour. It is stated that the application was not accepted and that led the Petitioner to file this writ petition.

Learned Government Pleader submits that it is because of the family dispute between the transferor and his wife, which is now pending before the Family Court, Trichur and on account of a doubt that the original landlord of the property had land in excess of the ceiling limit fixed under the Kerala Land Reforms Act that the Respondents did not accept the application under the Transfer of Registry Rules.

In my view, both the aforesaid objections are unsustainable. Even if it is assumed that the original landlord had excess land, the fact that the mutation is effected will not in any manner prevent the Respondents from proceeding against the land if it is otherwise liable to be proceeded against. The dispute that is pending in the Family Court also cannot have any relevance as far as mutation is concerned. This is all the more so for the reason that mutation is effected only for fiscal purposes and cannot have any impact on the title to the property.

Therefore, Ext. P10 order issued by the 1st Respondent is only to be quashed and I do so. It is directed that it will be open to the Petitioner to make his application for mutation of the property covered by Ext.P7 document, in which event, the 1st Respondent will accept the same and deal with the application in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.