Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32872
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
ANILKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
TAHASILDAR, – Respondent
WP(C)/26636/2021
SRI.M.G.JEEVAN, SRI.BILAL NIAMATHULLA, SMT.SANIYA JOSE MAMPILLY, SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN- SR.GP
The court affirmed that an attachment order does not bar the transfer of property registry or land tax payment if legal obligations are observed.
Headnote:
Transfer - Property - Attachment - Sections 1, 2 - The court held that an order of attachment does not prevent the transfer of the property registry or payment of land tax, highlighting the ability to comply with legal requirements while maintaining the attachment record.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought transfer of property registry and remittance of land tax, which was denied due to an attachment order noted in the Encumbrance Certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the existence of an attachment order does not impede property registration or tax payments, affirming the need for compliance with legal aspects while allowing procedural action.
Issues: Whether an order of attachment prevents the transfer of property registry and payment of land tax.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle established is that attachment of property runs with the property, and transfer or payment requests can proceed provided conditions regarding attachment records are met.
Final Decision: Writ petition allowed; registry transfer and tax remittance to be processed with attachment endorsement.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that his request for transfer of Registry and remittance of land tax over the property involved in this case have been refused by respondents merely saying that there is an order of attachment reflected on it.
2. Sri.M.G.Jeevan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the law has now been well established that even if there is an order of attachment, the transfer of Registry or remittance of land tax cannot be impeded by the competent Authority; and that, in any event of the matter, such attachment runs with the property and that his client will be obligated to abide by the same, subject to his available remedies.
3. In response, Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that respondents were incapacitated from acceding to the request of the petitioner because they noticed that the order of attachment has been reflected in Ext.P8 Encumbrance Certificate. He submitted that, however, if this Court is so inclined, they will accede to the request of the petitioner, provided they comply with all other legal requirements; however, making necessary endorsement in the records regarding the pendency of the attachment.
4. Sri.M.G.Jeevan responded to this affirmatively.
5. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to take necessary action for transfer of Registry of the property covered by Ext.P3 in favour of the petitioner and to then allow him to remit land tax thereon; however with an endorsement on all the records, including the tax receipt, regarding the attachment over the property, as reflected in Ext.P8 Encumbrance Certificate. The afore shall be done by the respondents as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
