The petitioners challenge Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P10 orders passed by the revenue authorities under the Transfer of Registry Rules, by which action had been taken against the petitioners for cancelling the mutation effected in their favour.
2. According to the petitioners, the 1st and 2nd petitioners had obtained certain item of property by way of two separate gift deeds dated 27.05.1998 executed by the 3rd petitioner. Subsequently on the basis of the gift deeds, the property was mutated in their favour as well and they were paying property tax. In the meantime, the Village Officer issued an intimation that the tax cannot be accepted in respect of the property owned by the petitioners. Later steps were taken and proceedings were issued for cancelling the mutation under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. Steps were also taken to recover the amount due from the donor of the property by initiating revenue recovery proceedings.
3. The main contention urged by the petitioners is that, they are not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the respondent authorities. That apart, the property was gifted as early as in the year 1998 and proceedings were taken only subsequently.
4. A perusal of the impugned orders would show that the original owner of the property was liable to pay the welfare fund W.P.(C) No.27891 of 2010 2 dues, which were payable from 1993 to 1996. The authorities proceeded on the basis that the gift deeds had been executed fraudulently to defeat the interest of the State in recovering the amounts. It is apparent that the petitioners are not bonafide purchasers for value and when the donor was liable to pay large amounts to the State by way of welfare fund dues and thereafter, he had executed the gift deeds, there cannot be any doubt regarding the fact that the execution of gift deeds were only to defeat the interest of the State in recovering the amount. When the gift deeds are fraudulently executed to defeat the creditors and that too the State, the documents are void and cannot be acted upon.
5. In the said circumstances, when the authorities under the Transfer of Registry Rules have cancelled the mutation and thereafter, proceeded to recover the amount by attachment and sale of the immovable property by issuing Ext.P11, I do not think that there is any infirmity in the said proceedings, warranting interference by this Court.
Since the petitioners have not made out any case for interference by this Court, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
AV