The requirement for due process and natural justice in property transfer matters is essential, especially when objections arise.

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 4-12-2021 passed by the 2nd respondent declining to transfer the sailing vessel in to her name and has sought for consequential direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider her application for transfer of sailing vessel in to her name.

2. Heard Sri Ajay Prabhu M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.V.Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The petitioner claims to be a resident of Sirlapadpu, Kulshekara, Mangalore and belongs to Hindu religion. The religion is emphasized for the fact that she gets married to one Volli Mohammed Aslam, a man belonging to different religion under a Special Marriage Act, 1954 on 8-06-2012. A certificate of such marriage is also appended to the petition. The husband of the petitioner owned a sailing vessel and was into the business of marine supplies being a partner in Hydraulic Mobile Crane with one Mohammed Shariff. It is the claim of the petitioner that since the date of marriage i.e., 8-06-2012 she was residing with her husband and the husband was not allowed in the house of his parents as he married the petitioner who is from a different religion. On 20-06-2021 the husband of the petitioner dies succumbing to COVID-19. A death certificate to that effect is also appended to the petition. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner made an application before the concerned authority for transfer of ownership of the crane and the same was transferred to the name of the petitioner based upon no objection given by the partner Mohammed Shariff. Every other property belonging to the husband of the petitioner was transferred in the name of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner then makes an application to transfer the sailing vessel owned by her husband which was duly registered under the Merchant Shipping Act , 1958. The petitioner was not allowed such transfer on account of the son of one of the sisters of the deceased husband had submitted a representation to the registering authority in the name of one Volli Obeidulla aged 85 years objecting to any such transfer. The 2nd respondent/competent authority, who was to effect such transfer, rejected the transfer in terms of the impugned order 04-12-2021 on the ground that there were objections for transfer of the said vessel. It is this rejection that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the strength of marriage certificate of the petitioner with the deceased all the other properties that were held in the name of the deceased have been transferred in favour of the petitioner. It is only this vessel that was declined to be transferred on an imaginary objection of one Volli Obeidulla, father of the deceased. He would contend that the subject vessel also is to be transferred in the name of the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondents who has filed his statement of objections would contend that all other properties having been transferred is of no avail as there was no objection from any quarter during those transfers. But, when the transfer was sought for the subject vessel, Volli Obeidulla, the father of the deceased had objected to the same contending that it should belong to the family and not to anybody else. It is because of this the Competent Auth