Partly allowed

Balachandran & Another v. the District Collector,Alappuzha & Anr.

Kerala HC7 Dec 2011WP(C)/23477/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed a writ petition regarding the non-consideration of an application for land mutation and correction of survey numbers. The court held that pendency of a civil suit does not restrain the competent authority from implementing Transfer of Registry Rules. It directed Lower Authorities to decide the applications within two months after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to finalize the matter and dispose of the mutation and correction applications within two months after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Balachandran & Another Vs the District Collector,Alappuzha… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 23477 of 2011(H)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

1. BALACHANDRAN, KARIKANICHIRA, WARD NO.6, AROOR P.O., CHERTHALA.

¶10

2. LIJI C.C. 1736/18, G.C.D.A. COLONY , PALLURATHY SOUTH P.O., KOCHI 5.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

1. THE DISTRICT CLELCTOR, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.

¶15

2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA CHERTHALA P.O. 688 524.

¶16

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AROOR VILLAGE, AROOR P.O., CHERTHALA 688 534.

¶17

4. SAIBA, W/O.DINESAN, KANNAMANGALATH, EZHUPUNNA NORTH, NEAR KALLUPURAKKAL TEMPLE, ERAMALLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN 685 837.

¶18

5. NIRMALA DEVI, SREEKARYAM HOUSE, AMPALLOOR WARD NO.4,KANJIRAMITTAM P.O., KANAYANNOOR , ERNAKULAM PIN 682 315.

¶19

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.RANI DIOTHIMA R4 BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL S.RAJ , SMT.K.N.RAJANI ,

¶20

SRI.D.VINOD . R5 BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR,SRI.SAJI KURIACHAN.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

tss

¶23

W.P.(C) NO.23477/2011

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶26

P1:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 25.11.2009.

¶27

P2:- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 27.1.2011 ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 3.2.2011 EXECUTED BY THE IST PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR POKKUVARAVU DTD. 3.2.2011.

¶28

P5:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.D 4.2.2011.

¶29

P6:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER DT. 23.2.2011.

¶30

P7:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE IST PETITIONER DTD. 3.3.2011.

¶31

P8:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 16.6.2011.

¶32

P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT. NIL.

¶33

P10:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS. 669/2007 DTD. 29.3.2010 OF THE MUNISFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA.

¶34

P11:- COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS. 669/2007 DTD. 29.3.2010 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA.

¶35

P12:- COPY OF THE AS. 45/2010 OF THE SUB COURT, CHERTHALA DT. 18.7.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶36

R4(a):- COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT WITH PLAN.

¶37

R4(b):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY 5TH RESPONDENT AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶38

R4(c):- COPY OF THE REPORT FILED B THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AROOR DTD. 7.10.2009.

¶39

R4(d):- COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DT.D 10.3.2010.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J.

¶44

W.P.(c)No.23477 OF 2011

¶45

DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011

¶46

J U D G M E N T

¶47

Issue involved in this writ petition pertains to nonconsideration of an application for mutation (transfer of registry) in the land records. By virtue of Ext.P1 Sale Deed, which was executed by the 5^th respondent, the 1^st petitioner had purchased 3.64 Ares of property situated in Aroor village. Survey number of the property mentioned in the Sale Deed is 405/8. Mutation was effected in favour of the 1^st petitioner and he had remitted land tax with respect to the property, as evidenced from Ext.P2. Subsequently 2.2 Ares out of the total extent of 3.64 Ares was transferred into the name of the 2^nd petitioner and her mother, through Ext.P3 Sale Deed. Exhibits P4 and P5 applications were submitted before the 3^rd respondent seeking to effect mutation in favour of assignees. But the 3^rd respondent has not considered the request and not effected transfer of registry.

¶48

W.P.(c) No.23477/2011

¶49

-2-

¶50

Meanwhile, the 2^nd respondent had issued Ext.P6 notice calling the 1^st petitioner for a personal hearing, on the basis of a request received from the 4^th respondent for correction of the survey number with respect to the property in question. The 1^st petitioner had submitted Ext.P7 objections to the proposal for correction of the survey number. But the 2^nd respondent has not taken any decision on that matter.

¶51

Since no action was taken to effect mutation on the basis of Exts.P4 and P5, the 1^st petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation before the 1^st respondent, the District Collector. But through Ext.P9 the 1^st respondent replied that there exists mistake in the 'thandaper' account and as well as in the survey number, mentioned in the documents of title and revenue records and necessary corrections can be effected only after decision in civil suit, O.S No.45/2010 pending before the Sub Court, Cherthala. Aggrieved by Ext.P9 this writ petition is filed seeking direction to respondents 1 to 3 to effect mutation as per Ext.P4

¶52

W.P.(c) No.23477/2011

¶53

-3-

¶54

application. According to the petitioner, the civil suit referred to in Ext.P9 has no relation with the property covered under Exts.P1 and P3 and the reasons stated for

¶55

not effecting mutation is not valid and sustainable.

¶56

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4^th respondent it is admitted that there exists some mistake in the revenue records as well as in the Sale Deeds to the extent of the survey number mentioned, and that corrections in the revenue records and consequent corrections in the title documents may be required. However, it is conceded that the civil suit pending has no connection with the property in question and that the corrections can be effected not withstanding pendency of the civil suit.

¶57

Going by the provisions contained in the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 it is for the Registering officer to effect the transfer, on the basis of application submitted, when there is a transfer of title of the property, after compliance of the procedure contemplated. If there is any

¶58

W.P.(c) No.23477/2011 -4-

¶59

any contest or dispute with respect to the application, the same shall be adjudicated by the competent authority as contemplated under the relevant Rules. Further, from the decision taken in this regard, statutory appeal is provided under the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules. Therefore, I am of the view that reasons mentioned in Ext.P9, that the application for transfer of registry can be entertained only after the disposal of civil suit, is not legally sustainable. Of course, title or ownership of a property may be decided ultimately through civil suits. But that will not in any manner restrain the competent authority to take steps under the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules.

¶60

In the case at hand, both sides concede that there is necessity to effect correction in the revenue records and in the title documents. A decision in this regard need be taken by the Registering officer or the competent authority under the Transfer of Registry Rules, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Hence I am of the view interests of justice will be served if

¶61

W.P.(c) No.23477/2011

¶62

-5-

¶63

the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to finalize the matter within a time limit to be stipulated.

¶64

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to take effective steps for disposal of Exts.P4 and P5 as well as the application if any submitted by respondents 4 and 5 seeking correction of the survey number, on an early basis. The needful in this regard shall be done with due notice to and after affording reasonable opportunity to all parties concerned, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶65

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶66

AMG

¶67

True copy

¶68

P.A to Judge

Balachandran & Another v. the District Collector,Alappuzha & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balachandran & Another v. the District Collector,Alappuzha & Anr.

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

Secretary, Industries Department Vs I.F.C.I

K.Rajalakshmi Amma Vs the Tahasildar

Krishna Swamy Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

Poomangalam Grama Panchayath Vs the Tribunal for Local Self Govt

The Chairman, Rajadhani Institute of Vs University of Kerala

The K.S.R.T.C Vs the Rta, Kottayam