Disposed

Jayasree v. Rajan

Kerala HC12 Oct 2011RP/365/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this review petition. Petitioners challenged an earlier order directing mutation in favour of the deceased owner's heirs, raising issues of hardship and procedural impropriety given a pending title suit. The court permitted the review by reiterating that the mutation order and tax acceptance do not adjudicate title, which remains for the civil court to decide. No substan

What did the court decide?

Redirection of religious sites to protect against idol theft and vandalism

Jayasree Vs Rajan — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 365 of 2011(C)

¶6

---------------------

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN WPC.5022/2011 DATED 17.02.2011

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONERS / PETITIONE / 3RD PARTIES :

¶9

¶10

JAYASREE,W/O.SATHYARAJAN,KAILAS, PANAYAM,YEROOR VILLAGE,PATHANAPURAM TALUK

¶11

SATHYARAJAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, KAILAS,PANAYAM,YEROOR VILLAGE,PATHANAPURAM TALUK

¶12

THULASEEDHARAN, S/O.KESAVAN, SREE BHAVAN, PANAYAM,YEROOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK

¶13

SATHYASOBHANA, W/O.THULASEEDHARAN SREE BHAVAN, PANAYAM,YEROOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK

¶14

BABU RAJAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN VARSHA BHAVAN, PANAYM,YEROOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK

¶15

SHEELA,W/O.SOMARAJAN, NISHA BHAVAN, PANAYAM, YEROOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK

¶16

BY ADV. MR. S.SREEKUMAR MR. MANOJ RAMASWAMY

¶17

RESPONDENTS:

¶18

--------------1. RAJAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, RAJAMALLY, N.T.V.NAGAR, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM

¶19

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, YEROOR VILLAGE OFFICE YEROOR, ANCHAL, KOLLAM-673307

¶20

THASILDAR, O/O.THASILDAR, PATHANAPURAM KOLLAM-673301

¶21

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM-673301

¶22

R1 BY ADV. MR. DILEEP P.PILLAI R2 TO 4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. P. MAYA

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶25

¶26

R.P. No. 365 of 2011 in W.P (C) No 5022 of 2011

¶27

¶28

Dated, this the 12^th October, 2011

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This review petition has been filed by the petitioners stating that the verdict passed by this Court on 17.02.2011 directing the first respondent to effect mutation and to accept the tax from the legal heirs of the deceased original owner has caused irreparable loss and hardship to the review petitioners, who are stated as 3^rd parties, who are enjoying the property for the last decades, effecting necessary improvements therein. It is stated that writ petitioner had approached this Court without impleading the review petitioners and other similarly situated persons, who are enjoying the property and thus obtained the order to have the mutation effected. It is also stated that the proceedings pursued by the writ petitioner are contrary to the relevant provisions of law, which has virtually defeated the right of the review petitioners from enjoying the properties effectively.

¶31

The learned counsel for the respondent in the review petition, who is the petitioner in the writ petition, brought it to the notice of this Court that, pursuant to the verdict passed by this Court, the directions contained therein have been complied with by the concerned

¶32

R.P. No. 365 of 2011 in W.P. (C) No. 5022 of 2011

¶33

: 2 :

¶34

authorities, effecting necessary changes in the revenue records and enabling the writ petitioner to remit the basic tax. The learned counsel also submits that, it is settled position of law that the mere remittance of tax will not decide the title over the property and that the dispute on the title of the property is already pending consideration before the concerned Civil Court.

¶35

In response to the said submission, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners, submits that, the impugned order passed by the RDO is not in conformity with Rule 9 of the Transfer of Registry Rules and hence the direction given by the RDO to the Tahasildar, to effect mutation is not correct or sustainable.

¶36

As borne by the judgment passed, this Court obviously did not enter into the merits of the case or as to the title over the property or such other rights of the parties concerned. The operative portion of the verdict passed by this Court as contained in 5 reads as follows:

¶37

“ In the above circumstances, the 1^st respondent is directed to effect the change in the registry and accept the tax from the legal heirs of the deceased original owner. The steps in this regard shall be finalized within 'one week' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy this judgment before the 1^st respondent for taking further steps.”

¶38

R.P. No. 365 of 2011 in W.P. (C) No. 5022 of 2011

¶39

: 3 :

¶40

It is made clear that the verdict as above or the further steps pursued by the Revenue authorities, pursuant to the above verdict, will not affect the rights and liberties of the parties over the properties concerned. It will be open for the parties concerned to approach the Civil Court to establish their ownership, title, possession and such other rights and liberties over the properties.

¶41

The Review Petition is disposed of as above.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶44

kmd

¶45

/True copy/

¶46

P.A. to Judge

Jayasree v. Rajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayasree v. Rajan

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

Valsamma Joseph Vs State of Kerala

E.J.Ammini Vs Trichur Corporation

Hemamalini Vs Sub Regional Transport Officer

Simi S. Vs State of Kerala

Cochin Yachat Club Vs State of Kerala

Mar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical Vs Kerala University of Health and Allied S