Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
SURESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 19517/2013
Mutation - Property Law - Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 - The court held that pendency of Revenue Recovery proceedings does not bar the mutation of property, affirming the legal position that mutation does not affect title.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to effect mutation of property covered by a Settlement Deed but was denied due to pending Revenue Recovery proceedings against the previous owner. This denial was challenged in a writ petition.
Issues: Whether pendency of Revenue Recovery proceedings constitutes a bar to effecting mutation of property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that mutation is a process to update revenue records and does not interfere with title; thus, pending Revenue Recovery proceedings cannot obstruct the mutation process.
Final Decision: Writ petition allowed; direction to reconsider mutation application.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner of the property covered by Ext.P1 Settlement Deed of SRO, Kottarakara. The grievance is in respect of the refusal to effect mutation, referring to pendency of some Revenue Recovery proceedings against the erstwhile owner of the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had to leave the station and was remaining abroad to eke out his living. When he returned back, the petitioner filed an application to effect mutation, upon which Ext.P2 reply was issued on 04.04.2012 pointing out that, in view of the pendency of the RR proceedings, the request cannot be acceded to. This in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. The crucial question to be considered is whether pendency of RR Proceedings is a bar for effecting mutation. It is settled law that, mutation is only to effect change in the Revenue records under the relevant provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 and that, the process of mutation does not either confer or divest the title. It is also to be seen that, the RR proceedings referred to in Ext.P2 are of the year 2010/2012, i.e., much after Ext.P1 Settlement Deed executed and registered on February 1999. As such, pendency of the RR proceedings can never be a bar for granting the relief sought for by the petitioner. This is more so, in view of the position of law made clear by this Court in the decision rendered in (2010 (4) KLT 215)
Thulasibahai v. State of Kerala.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondents to reconsider the application preferred by the petitioner for effecting mutation of the property covered by Ext.P1 Settlement Deed. Necessary steps shall be taken and the proceedings shall be finalized at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month', subject to satisfaction of the relevant requirements, in accordance with the transfer of Registry Rules. Ext.P2 will stand set aside to the said extent. Writ petition is disposed of.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the respondents for further steps.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
