T E THOMAS Vs. TAHSILDAR PARAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims ownership over 9. 044 cents of land stated to have been purchased under Exhibit-P1 sale deed. He seeks mutation of the said property in his name and also a direction to the 2nd respondent to accept the basic tax in relation to the said property.

(2.) IT seems that originally an objection was raised by the 2nd respondent referring to a suit filed by one K. P. Mohanan against the petitioner for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Going by Exhibit-P5 the suit was dismissed. Though this was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent, the objections persisted. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) IF the only objection raised by the 2nd respondent against mutation in the name of the petitioner was the pendency of the suit which has been disposed of under Exhibit-P5, then there is no reason why the objections should be persisted with. In the result, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to proceed to effect mutation in relation to the property covered by Exhibit-P1 sale deed in the name of the petitioner and to accept basic tax as well within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment of if there is any other objection then the 2nd respondent shall pass a reasoned order, indicating such objections. The writ petition is disposed of as above.