Allowed

Navas. Rep. by P.A.H. Kunjikochu v. Deputy Collector

Kerala HC24 Jun 2010WP(C)/9155/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging orders cancelling a mutation record. The court held that the authority failed the principles of natural justice by not hearing the title-holder before passing the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; 2nd respondent directed to reconsider matter after hearing parties and pass fresh orders within two months.

Navas. Rep. by P.A.H. Kunjikochu Vs Deputy Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 9155 of 2010(T) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶7

NAVAS, S/O. KUNJIKOCHU, MATHILAKATH VEETTIL HOUSE, AZHIKKODE, REP. BY POWER OF ATTRNEY HOLDER, KUNJIKOCHU, AGED 74 YEARS S/O. SEETHI HAJI, MATHILAKATH VEETTIL, AZHIKKODE, THRISSUR DIST.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, KODUNGALLUR BYPASS, O/O. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, KODUNGALLUR.

¶12

THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGLLUR.

¶13

VILLAGE OFFICER, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR.

¶14

KAMALAKSHI, W/O. KRISHNAN, PATHRAKADAVIL HOUSE, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR.

¶15

ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY FOR R4

¶16

SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) FOR R4 SRI.MAHESH MENON FOR R4

¶17

GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.M.A.ASIF

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C).No. 9155/2010

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

P1. COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. P2. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.27.5.09. P3. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.30.5.09. P4. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.405/09 OF SUB COURT IRINJALAKUDA. P5. COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER. P6. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.20.6.09 OF R1. P7. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.22.07.09 BY R2. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R4A. COPY OF THE SALE DEED. B. COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD.25.7.09. C. COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER. D. COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.405/09. E. COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE. sdk+

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

==================

W.P.(C).No. 9155 of 2010

¶28

==================

¶29

Dated this the 24^th day of June, 2010

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7 orders, which, according to the petitioner, would have the effect of cancellation of mutation effected in respect of certain properties in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner complains that those orders were passed without hearing the petitioner.

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶33

The 4^th respondent would try to support the impugned orders on the ground that the petitioner has obtained mutation in respect of the properties not belonging to the petitioner, but belonging to the 4^th respondent, without impleading the petitioner in the proceedings. The 4^th respondent would further submit that in view of the documents, which she has produced along with her counter affidavit, the only conclusion possible is the one arrived at in Exts.P6 and P7. The 4^th respondent would, therefore, submit that notwithstanding the fact that before effecting mutation, the petitioner had not been heard, it would not make any difference, because even after hearing the petitioner, the only outcome would be that reached in

w.p.c.9155/10

Exts.P6 and P7.

I am not able to agree with contention of the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent. Having effected mutation in favour of the petitioner, the minimum what respondents 1 to 3 should have done is to hear the petitioner before passing Exts.P6 and P7 orders. The question as to whether after hearing the petitioner also, the result would have been the same can be said only after the appropriate authority considers the matter in the light of evidence to be produced by both sides and not on the basis of the documents produced by the 4^th respondent alone. Therefore, Exts.P6 and P7 orders are liable to be quashed as violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, they are quashed. The 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent and pass fresh orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

sdk+

¶40

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶41

///True copy///

¶42

P.A. to Judge

¶43

w.p.c.9155/10 3

Navas. Rep. by P.A.H. Kunjikochu v. Deputy Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navas. Rep. by P.A.H. Kunjikochu v. Deputy Collector

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

P.Ramanathan Vs K.Balakrishnan Nambiar

M/S K.N.Security & Allied Services Vs P.Jagadeesan and Another

K.Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala and Another

C.Rajeev Vs the Tahsildar

Kamalamma Vs Kerala Water Authority

K.M.Hydrose Koyathangal Vs the Taluk Land Board