The mere existence of revenue recovery proceedings does not impede the transfer of property registry; title remains unchanged until enforcement actions occur.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the daughter of the 5th respondent. 5th respondent by virtue of Ext.P1 document, transferred an extent of 10 cents of property comprised in Survey No. 437/4, Block No. 30 of Kilimanoor Village in favour of the petitioner and her husband. Thereafter, petitioner filed application for effecting mutation under the Transfer of Registry Rules, before the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, the said property was not subjected to any kind of encumbrance or liability at the time of transfer. However, mutation was not effected and land tax is not collected from the petitioner and her husband. Accordingly, petitioner made enquiry and she collected Ext.P3 notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, against her father. Thereupon understood that, pursuant to Ext.P3 alone, transfer of registry is not effected by the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, mere pendency of a recovery proceeding is not an enabling ground for the statutory authority to effect transfer of registry of a property. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

2. Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations, statements and claims raised by the petitioner.

3. According to the second respondent, petitioner's father has filed O.S.No.168/2006 before the Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, as a pauper. Subsequent to the dismissal of the said suit, action was initiated to realise court fee amounting to Rs.1,60,800/-. It is thereupon that, the transfer of registry is not undertaken by the statutory authority. Taking note of the respective submissions made across the Bar, the sole issue to be decided is whether pendency of a revenue recovery proceedings will debar the statutory authority from effecting transfer of registry as provided under the Transfer of Registry Rules. The said question was considered by this Court in Anwar.M Easa v. District Collector, Ernakulam [2010 (1) KLT 747] and held that merely because a recovery proceeding is pending that will not dissuade the statutory authority from effecting transfer of registry of a property. It is also stated therein that, a better tile is not created by effecting transfer of registry and accepting land tax thereunder. That apart it is also held therein that, mere pendency of a revenue recovery will not change the title or character of a property. The title and character is changed only after the selling of the property by the revenue recovery authorities.

4. In that view of the matter, I think it is only appropriate that, the 4th respondent is directed to take note of the said proposition of law laid down by this Court and do the necessary in order to effect mutation on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner. However, I make it clear, 4th respondent will be free and at liberty to make necessary endorsement with respect to the recovery action initiated, if a certificate transferring the registry is issued to the petitioner. A decision shall be taken within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.