Lissie K. Varghese Vs State of Kerala and The Village Officer

High Court Of Kerala 31 Jan 2011 Writ Petition (C) No. 3063 of 2011 (G) (2011) 01 KL CK 0208
Bench: Single Bench

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition (C) No. 3063 of 2011 (G)

Hon'ble Bench

Antony Dominic, J

Advocates

Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, for the Appellant; No Appearance, for the Respondent

Judgement Text

Translate:

Antony Dominic, J.@mdashAccording to the Petitioner, she, along with her husband, has purchased 43.73 Ares of land situated in survey No. 426/2 (Re-survey No. 154/2/2) of Ayyampuzha village in Aluva Taluk. It is stated that, though application was made for mutation and for acceptance of tax, the same was declined for the reason that the predecessor in interest of the property has certain liabilities to the first Respondent. In my view, that cannot be a reason for declining mutation for the reason that the mutation is only for fiscal purposes and if at all there is any liability, which is enforeable against the property, that is not going to be affected by mutation and mutation cannot be denied for that reason. Therefore, it is clarified that if the refusal is for the reason that the predecessor in interest has liabilities to the first Respondent, that reason will not be held against the Petitioner and the mutation applied for by the Petitioner will be allowed.

2. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and writ petition before the second Respondent for compliance.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Clarifies Section 27 Evidence Act: Only “Fact Discovered” Admissible, Not Entire Statement
Nov
19
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 27 Evidence Act: Only “Fact Discovered” Admissible, Not Entire Statement
Read More
Bar Council of India Defends Rules Allowing Foreign Law Firms in Delhi High Court
Nov
19
2025

Court News

Bar Council of India Defends Rules Allowing Foreign Law Firms in Delhi High Court
Read More