SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46942

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T. R. Ravi, J
K.M.MOIDEEN@ MEETHIYAN KUNJU – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C)/20134/2022



Advocates:
K.A.MANZOOR ALI, THASNEEM BASHEER

A stop memo does not prohibit the mutation of property that has been legally registered.

Headnote:

Mutation - Property Registration - Act Section List - Stop memo cannot impede mutation on legally registered property.

Fact of the Case:

A writ petition was filed to direct the respondent to accept and register a settlement deed in favor of the petitioner's daughter and to effect mutation in the records. The document was registered, but mutation was declined due to a stop memo.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the reasoning for declining mutation unjustified as it noted that the stop memo related to entirely different proceedings and should not impede the registration and mutation process, which serves fiscal purposes.

Issues: Whether a stop memo prevents the mutation of property that has been legally registered.

Ratio Decidendi: Effecting mutation and tax collection should not be hindered by a stop memo from unrelated proceedings.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to effect mutation based on the registered deed.

JUDGMENT

The writ petition was filed praying for a direction to the 3rd respondent to accept and register the settlement deed to be executed by the petitioner in favour of his daughter disregarding the pendency of Ext.P4 stop memo. There is also a prayer for a direction to the 2nd respondent to effect mutation in the Revenue and Panchayath records once the registration is effected by the 3rd respondent.

2. Pending the writ petition, the 3rd respondent has already accepted the document and registered, and the copy of the registered document has been produced as Ext.P7. The only other question that remains is regarding effecting of mutation. Pending the writ petition, the 2nd respondent has declined the request as per Ext.P8 stating that a stop memo had been issued and the process pursuant to the stop memo has to be completed.

3. The reasoning in Ext.P8 is not justified. There is no reason not to effect mutation of a property which has been legally registered, particularly since effecting mutation and collection of land tax is only for the fiscal purposes. Stop memo issued under a totally different proceedings cannot in any way be a hurdle for effecting mutation.

The writ petition is hence disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to effect the mutation of the property in the name of the transferee as per Ext.P7 registered settlement deed and permit the land owner to pay the tax. The above direction is without any prejudice to the right of the respondents to complete the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P4 stop memo. Orders shall be issued within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI JUDGE

LEK

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20134/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED

6.4.2022 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF UPTO DATE LAND TAX BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT NO.

1844 DATED 21.05.2022 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, KADUNGALLUR.

Exhibit P1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT NO.

01/121020101888 DATED 14.07.2021 REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED

21.05.2007 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADUNGALLUR.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED

24.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED IN FORM NO. 6 BY THE PETITIONER DATED

17.05.2022 ALONG WITH THE CHALLAN RECEIPT DATED 30.11.2020 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT SETTLEMENT DEED PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER FOR REGISTRATION IN FAVOUR OF HIS DAUGHTER.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2157/2022 OF SRO ALANGAD EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER TO HIS DAUGHTER.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.459/2022 DATED 31.8.2022.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top