The court clarified that a dismissal of an application for property registry without proper consideration violates statutory rights, necessitating a fair evaluation.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellants call into question the correctness of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, in WP(C).No.22663/2012.

2. Sri.Suraj Kumar R. – learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, all his clients pleaded in the Writ Petition was that the competent Authority of the Department of Revenue be directed to consider their application for Transfer of Registry of the property in question, which he had requested based on valid documents of title; but that, instead of doing so, the 4^th respondent – Village Officer, issued communication making several untenable statements - including that the “Thandapper Registers” are in disarray and virtually in a stage of obliteration - but without considering the merits of his clients' application. He argued that have the appellants had no other option but to approach this Court and seek that the Village Officer be directed to take necessary action as per the statutory scheme. He alleged that, however, without understanding the real purport of the prayer, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition, saying that his clients have a right to appeal against Ext.P5 before the competent Authority; asserting that no such liberty or remedy is available under the statutory provisions.

3. Sri.Syamanthak B.S – learned Government Pleader, conceded that an appeal against Ext.P5 may not be tenable; but added that the Village Officer had no other option but to issue it because there are several attachments over the property; and also that he had found that there are “multiplications / duplications” in the “Thandapper numbers”.

4. We are not in a position, with the available records, to make an evaluation of the merits of what the Village Officer has said in Ext.P5. He has mentioned various things therein, which are within the ambit of facts and which remain very severely disputed. However, the factum of registers being not maintained properly, cannot be used to the disadvantage of citizens; and the further question, whether attachments ordered by the Courts, would operate in a particular manner so as to stop Transfers of Registry, are matters which are to be analyzed, assessed and evaluated by the Authority concerned as per law. We cannot hazard guesses, nor are we competent to do so.

5. In the afore circumstances and since it is without contest that an appeal against Ext.P5 is not possible, we are enjoined to intervene.

6. Resultantly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment; with a consequential direction to the Village Officer, or such other competent Authority of the Revenue, to immediately consider the application of the petitioners for Transfer of Registry of the property governed by Ext.P1 - as evident from Ext.P4 receipt - as per law, after affording them necessary opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

7. Needless to say, while completing the afore exercise, the Authority will act dehors its earlier opinion in Ext.P5, or in any other communication between the parties;

and take a dispassionate decision as per law, adverting to all relevant facts and materials.

We also clarify that we have not adverted to the alleged factum of attachments, if any, on the property; and hence, its impact will also be assessed by the competent Authority as per law.

Sd/-