JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of July, 2022 The petitioner had purchased a flat in the Apartment Complex constructed by the 7th respondent. The building was constructed after availing financial assistance from the 5th respondent. After purchasing the flat, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent for effecting mutation. Thereupon, the petitioner was informed that for effecting mutation, he has to produce lien release certificate from the 5th respondent. On enquiry, petitioner came to know that the 7th respondent had defaulted the loan availed from the 5th respondent and further that, the flat purchased by the petitioner was earlier booked by one Radha V.Pillai and Venugopal Pillai. The said persons were issued lien release certificate by the 5th respondent. Later, Radha V.Pillai and Venugopal Pillai cancelled their booking. Surprisingly, when the petitioner approached the 5th respondent for issue of corrected lien release certificate, he was asked to approach through the builder. Accordingly, the 7th respondent issued Ext.P6 mail stating that the builder had no objection in the certificate being issued to the petitioner. As there was no response from the 5th respondent, petitioner approached the Tahsildar, Chavakkad seeking to effect transfer of registry to his name. However, the third respondent expressed inability to effect mutation without a lien release certificate issued by the 5th respondent. Thereupon, petitioner made a request to the District Collector, resulting in Ext.P9 communication, reiterating the stand taken by the Village Officer and Tahsildar. Hence, this writ petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that having issued lien release certificate for the flat purchased by the petitioner in the name of Radha V.Pillai and Venugopal Pillai, the 5th respondent cannot refuse to issue the certificate by incorporating the subsequent purchaser’s name, as certificate is with respect to the apartment and not the individual. Alternatively, it is contented that the revenue authorities are bound to effect transfer of registry in the petitioner's favour, without insisting for production of the lien release certificate. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the decision in [2019 (4) KHC 799]

and [2010 (4) KHC 142].

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent made the following submissions;

The 7th respondent had availed a construction loan of Rs.10 Crores on the security of the immovable property in which the apartment complex was proposed to be constructed. Accordingly, the property was mortgage to the KTDFC. Out of the total amount sanctioned, Rs.8,80,00,000/- was disbursed. Thereafter, the repayment of the loan was defaulted and the 5th respondent was constrained to initiate revenue recovery proceedings against the borrower and guarantors. As part of the proceedings, the land and the apartment building was attached. Ext.P4 NOC was issued in the name of Radha V.Pillai as early as on 30.05.2013 before attachment was effected. By the time petitioner purchased the flat in the year 2019, the 5th respondent had initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the property. Between 2013 and 2019, Radha V.Pillai had cancelled her booking and had relinquished her right over the flat. Thereupon, the ownership of the flat reverted to the 7th respondent. The petitioner committed the mistake of purchasing the flat without verifying the encumbrance details.

4. As rightly contended by the Standing Counsel, immovable property of the 7th respondent, including the flat purchased by the petitioner, being under attachment, this Court cannot issue a mandamus directing the 5th respondent to issue lien release certificate. At the same time, I find merit in the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, irrespective of whether lien release certificate is issued or not, the revenue authorities are bound to effect mutation. The position is no longer res intergra in the light of the decisions