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
ITAT Ahmedabad Rules: Calculation Error in Section 54F Exemption Not Tax Misreporting
Nov
29
2025

Court News

ITAT Ahmedabad Rules: Calculation Error in Section 54F Exemption Not Tax Misreporting
Read More
Delhi High Court Refuses to De-Freeze Bank Account, Cites Concealment in ₹19.39 Crore GST ITC Fraud Probe
Nov
29
2025

Court News

Delhi High Court Refuses to De-Freeze Bank Account, Cites Concealment in ₹19.39 Crore GST ITC Fraud Probe
Read More