Allowed

Mrs. M. Mullamony & Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC3 Nov 2009WP(C)/16612/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Kerala single judge allowed a writ petition seeking mutation of land in revenue records. The court quashed an order rejecting a mutation application based on misconception of facts and directed the Revenue authorities to effect the transfer of register within one month.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 quashed; Respondents 2 and 3 directed to effect transfer of register in favour of second petitioner within one month.

Mrs. M. Mullamony & Another Vs State of Kerala and Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 16612 of 2009(V)

PETITIONER(S):

MRS.M.MULLAMONY, ANAKAVILAKOM, RATHIKAL, VETTOOR P.O., VARKALA.

¶10

NAZIA BASHEER, ARIVALATHU KAVINTE VEEDU, VETTOOR P.O., VARKALA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.VINOD J.DEV

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THAHASILDAR, OFFICE OF THE THAHASILDAR, ATTINGAL.

¶16

VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, VETTOOR P.O., VARKALA.

¶17

SALE TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SALES TAX OFFICER, ATTINGAL.

¶18

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶21

W.P.(C) No. 16612 OF 2009 -------------------------Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2009

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The second petitioner purchased a parcel of land from the first petitioner vendor as per original of Ext.P1 sale deed dated 26.6.2008 registered as document No.2868/08 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Varkala, The second petitioner thereupon submitted an application to the third respondent Village Officer to effect mutation in the revenue records. By Ext.P2 letter dated 6.12.2008, the Village Officer informed the second petitioner that as revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated in respect of the lands conveyed to her, her application for mutation in the revenue records has been rejected. Ext.P2 is under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioners seek a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to effect mutation in the revenue records in favour of the second petitioner.

¶24

When this writ petition came up for hearing today, Sri.P.N.Santhosh, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that he has been instructed by the Tahsildar, Chirayankizhu whose office is situated in Attingal that

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 16612/09

¶26

¶27

Ext.P2 letter was sent under a misconception of facts and that necessary instructions have been issued to the Village Officer, Vettoor to effect mutation in the revenue records in favour of the second petitioner.

¶28

In the light of the said submission, I quash Ext.P2 and direct respondents 2 and 3 to take steps to effect transfer of register in the name of the second petitioner in the revenue records. This shall be done within one month from the date on which the second petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the third respondent. Orders in that regard shall be passed on the application that was disposed of by Ext.P2 order, without insisting on the petitioner applying afresh.

¶29

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

¶30

vps

Mrs. M. Mullamony & Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. M. Mullamony & Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Salam Vs the District Collector

M/S Cee Jee Lubricants Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporat

Sulochana Vs State of Kerala and Others

Geevarghese M.P. Vs Sri.Yacobkutty & Another

Remya Vs Commissioner for Entrance Examinations &

Surekha S. Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.