Disposed

Glady Mathew v. Secretary Thodupuzha Municipality

Kerala HC21 Jun 2012WP(C)/2748/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner claimed ownership of land disputing a municipal change of ownership in favor of other claimants. Court held the Municipality must complete its enquiry and pass a final order within six weeks after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Municipality to conclude its enquiry into the petitioner's representation, afford hearing to parties, and pass final orders within six weeks.

Glady Mathew Vs Secretary Thodupuzha Municipality — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2012/31ST JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2748 of 2011 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GLADY MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 30 YEARS,RESIDING AT VEMPILLY HOUSE, VENGALOOR, KUMARAMANGALAM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR, SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 584.

¶11

2. YOUSUF,S/O.MOHAMMED,AGED 44 YEARS, PATTARUMADOM, ALLAPPRA P.O, VENGOLA - 683 553, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶12

3. ALIYAR,S/O.BEERAN,AGED 50 YEARS, CHERUMOODEN HOUSE,PALLIPRAM, MARAMPALLY, MUDICKAL P.O -683 547.

¶13

4. MOIDEEN,S/O.ANDROO,AGED 47 YEARS, KUPPAKKATTIL HOUSE,PALLIPRAM, MARAMPALLY, MUDICKAL P.O- 683 547.

¶14

5. THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶15

R1 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ, R2, R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.H.HAMZA ROWTHER, SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN,

¶16

SRI.H.SUNIL.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C).NO.2748/2011-P:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.3414/2008 REGISTERED AT SUB-REGISTER OFFICE, THODUPUZHA.

¶22

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DTD. 1/11/2004 IN THE NAME OF SRI. MATHAI CHACKO.

¶23

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2259/2008 REGISTERED AT SUBREGISTRAR OFFICE, THODUPUZHA.

¶24

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 16/11/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1.

¶25

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE STATEMENTS TAKEN BY THE R.1. WHICH IS OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.2748 of 2011

¶32

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2012

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Petitioner claims that two cents of land comprised in Survey No. 1244/7/14 situated in Kumaramangalam Village was assigned to him by the legal heirs of late Sri. Mathai Chacko. It is his case that there are a couple of buildings in the land and that the petitioner has been paying building tax till 2004.

¶35

According to him, one Joseph assigned the property to

¶36

the second respondent in 2008 and that subsequently, second respondent assigned the property to respondents 3 and 4. On the strength of the assignment in his favour, the second respondent made an application for change of ownership and accordingly, the Municipality changed the ownership in favour of the second respondent.

¶37

Contending that the second respondent or respondents

¶38

3 and 4 had no title over the property and that their names should not be retained as owners, petitioner submitted Ext.P4

¶39

W.P.(C).No.2748/2011

¶40

: 2 :

¶41

representation. The Municipality did not give any reply and in these circumstances, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the Municipality submits that they effected change in their records, on the basis of the documents produced by Sri. Joseph. It is also submitted that after receiving Ext.P4, notice was issued to the petitioner and other rival claimants. According to the Municipality, although an enquiry was conducted into the petitioner's claim, final order in the matter has not been passed so far.

¶43

Evidently, therefore, the decision to be taken by the Municipality is whether the petitioner still continues as the owner of the property and if the conclusion is in favour of the petitioner, necessary modification will have be made to the ownership register. Such an enquiry, will have to be conducted by the Municipality itself.

¶44

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the Municipality will conclude its enquiry into Ext.P4 representation made by the petitioner. If parties have not been heard, they should also be afforded an opportunity for hearing. Thereafter,

¶45

W.P.(C).No.2748/2011

¶46

: 3 :

¶47

final orders in the matter shall be passed as expeditiously as

¶48

possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶49

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶50

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶51

Glady Mathew v. Secretary Thodupuzha Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Glady Mathew v. Secretary Thodupuzha Municipality

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

S. Mohanan Nair Vs D. Rajan Pillai

P.K.Gopinathan Nair Vs Roopkala S.Jagath

Reshma. R Vs M.V. Joseph

M/S.Craysol Technologies (India) Pvt.Ltd Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Mavoor Panchayath Small Scale Bricks &Co Vs Dist.Collector

Nizamudheen a. Vs Chirakkara Grama Panchayath