MEENAKSHI SAVITHRI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the wife and children of one Sri. Damodaran who purchased 17.81 Ares of property comprised in Sy. No.439/1/2 of Punnapra village by virtue of Ex.P1 sale deed registered as No.1147/1979 of SRO, Alappuzha. The purchase was on 17-04-1979. It is evident that the vendor of the property was a defaulter in payment of arrears of Sales Tax, for which the land in question was attached and sold in auction. In fact the Government have purchased the land in auction and it was kept as bought-in- land. From Ext.P2 letter issued by the Government it is revealed that the vendor of the property had applied for re-conveyance of the land and Government had directed him to make payment of the entire arrears, along with interest within a period of 30 days. Exhibit P3 receipt reveals that the vendor had remitted Rs.8,322.00 on 26-12-1986. Exhibit P4 letter issued by the District Collector to the Tahsildar will indicate that direction was issued to assign the land in question in favour of the vendor, on the basis of the remittance already made. However, no further steps were seen pursued either for re-conveyance of the land or for assignment. Much after the above steps, the petitioners herein had filed a civil suit seeking declaration of the title over the property and for a consequential injunction. In Ext.P5 judgment the suit was decreed as early as on 31-01-2000 declaring title and possession of the petitioner over the property and restraining the Government as well as the Tahsildar from dispossessing him. In Ext.P5 judgment a direction was issued by the learned Munsiff to the defendants to the effect mutation of the property into the name of the petitioner, through a mandatory injunction. It is evident that, the 3rd respondent had refused to effect mutation alleging that there were discrepancies in the Thandaper and Re-survey records with respect to name of the owner and extent of the land. Through Ext.P6 letter the petitioners were directed to rectify such defects by approaching the Re-survey authorities. Exhibit P6 letter was issued as early as in February, 2007. Inspite of the decree and the steps initiated for effecting mutation, the petitioners were served with Ext.P7 notice issued by the 3rd respondent threatening eviction from the property on the premise that property remains as bought-in-land. It is aggrieved by Ext.P7 notice this writ petition is filed.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners they have taken steps to rectify the Re-survey records as evident from Ext.P8. A further representation has also been submitted by the petitioners as per Ext.P9. But the 3rd respondent did not consider those aspects and threatened with further steps on the basis of Ext.P7. The petitioners inter alia seek direction against the 3rd respondent to take steps on the basis of Ext.P4. Alternatively, the petitioners are seeking direction to effect mutation on the basis of Ext.P5.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent it is stated that further proceedings in the matter has already been dropped. Under the above mentioned circumstances this writ petition is disposed of restraining the respondents from proceeding with any further steps pursuant to Ext.P7 notice for evicting the petitioners from the property in question, as long as Ext.P5 judgment and decree thereof stands valid and in force.