The petitioner claims to be the owner of 24.5 cents of land with a building bearing door No.5/332 of Alappuzha Municipality. According to the petitioner, he has acquired title to the property as per Ext.P1 document dated 18.11.1994. Immediately after the said document was registered, the petitioner had submitted an application to the Municipality for changing the ownership of the building to his name. He has not retained a copy thereof. The Municipality has not passed any orders thereof, till date. It is the case of the petitioner that, mutation has been effected to his name in respect of the property, in the Revenue records and land tax is being paid by him in his name. However since the ownership of the building has not been transferred, he is not able to remit the property tax. He is also not able to obtain a certificate of residence from the Municipality. 2. A statement has been filed by the first respondent.
According to the first respondent, the petitioner's late mother Smt.Gouri Amma had availed a loan from the Municipality for the repair of her house. She had defaulted repayment of the said loan. At present, a total amount of ₹25,358/- is remaining outstanding and due from the petitioner who is the legal representative of his late mother, towards the loan account. The stand of the first respondent is that, if the petitioner remits the said amount the request for change of ownership of the building would be considered.
3. According to Sri.S.Sanal Kumar who appears for the petitioner, section 240 of the Kerala Municipality Act casts a duty on the Municipality to effect change in ownership of the building to the petitioner who has succeeded to his mother. The only condition that the Municipality is permitted to insist upon is for payment of the property tax due under section 237 of the Act. The amount claimed by the Municipality not being a liability stipulated by the legal provision, it is contended that the refusal to transfer the ownership of the building to the name of the petitioner is without any justification. Adv.Azad Babu appears for the Municipality.
4. Heard. Section 240 obligates the transferee of a property to intimate the Municipality of such transfer within a period of three months of the date of the document of transfer. It is the case of the petitioner that he had submitted an application for effecting transfer of ownership of the building to his name immediately after Ext.P1 document. The above fact has not been disputed in the statement of the first respondent. Therefore, it was incumbent on the first respondent to have considered the application submitted by the petitioner and passed appropriate orders thereon, under section 240 of the Act. The stand taken in the statement of the first respondent is that the petitioner's application would be considered only if he clears the outstanding amount due towards repayment of a loan availed by his deceased mother. Section 240 does not entitle the Municipality to insist on repayment of the said loan as a condition for transfer of ownership. If any amount is due from the petitioner in his capacity as the legal representative of his deceased mother, the Municipality shall be at liberty to recover the same by initiating proceedings in accordance with law. If such liability is a charge on the property, the Municipality would certainly be at liberty to recover the same from the property also. However, the present stand that change of ownership of the building would not be effected until the liability is discharged, cannot be countenanced on the basis of the legal provision, section 240 of the Act.
5. In view of the above, it is only appropriate that the first respondent considers the application of the petitioner and passes appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, without further delay.
This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the application for change of ownership submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.