Disposed

Asha v. Village Offficer

Kerala HC1 Nov 2013WP(C)/13352/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition regarding refusal to effect mutation of property based on a will. The Court directed the respondents to process the fifth petitioner's application for mutation within two months, accepting the requirement to check the existence of the second petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to consider Ext.P6 and finalise the mutation within two months of receipt of the judgment, ensuring the outer layer (land boundaries) is identified if necessary.

Asha Vs Village Offficer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/10TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 13352 of 2013 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. ASHA, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, KARUTHALA HOUSE, ANNANAD P.O. AND W/O.MANIKANDAN, KAVANAPPILLY HOUSE, ASHTAMICHIRA

¶8

THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. KRISHANANKUTTY

¶10

S/O. JANAKI AMMA, KARUTHALA HOUSE, ANNANAD P.O.

¶11

THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

3. ANANDAVALLI W/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, KARUTHALA HOUSE, ANNANAD P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN BY ADVS.SMT.P.R.REENA

¶14

SRI.M.R.DHANIL

¶15

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶16

1. THE VILLAGE OFFFICER KALLUR VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, KADUKUTTY P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680315.

¶17

2 . TAHSILDAR

¶18

TALUK OFFICE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, IRINJALAKUDA THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680121.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

...2/-

¶23

WP(C).No. 13352 of 2013 (T)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶26

EXHIBTI P1TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL EXECUTED BY JANAKI AMMA IN FAVOUR OF ASHA AND ANOOP DATED 22-5-1987.

¶27

EXHIBTI P2TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF JANKI AMMA DATED 03-01-1991.

¶28

EXHIBTI P3TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 30-06-2004 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶29

EXHIBTI P3(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 25-5-2012 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶30

EXHIBTI P3(b)- TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 04-04-2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶31

EXHIBTI P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OP NO. 11/2012 OF MUNSIFF COURT CHALAKUDY DATED 28-02-2013.

¶32

EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1182/2013 DATED 15-4-2013.

¶33

EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶39

¶40

W.P.(c) No.13352 OF 2013

¶41

¶42

Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2013

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Refusal on the part of the first respondent in effecting mutation in

¶45

respect of the property covered by Ext.P5 executed by the first petitioner in favour of her mother, the third petitioner, as sought for in Ext.P6 application, is the subject matter involved in this writ petition.

¶46

The first petitioner is the daughter of the second and third

¶47

petitioners, who are her father and mother respectively. The grand mother of the first petitioner and mother of the second petitioner executed Ext.P1 Will, whereby property having an extent of 7 ½ cents of land in Sy.No.915/11 was bequeathed in favour of the first petitioner and her brother by name Anoop, subject to satisfaction of a total sum of Rs. 1000/- to the beneficiary by name Bhargavi. Pursuant to the demise of the executant of the Will, as borne by Ext.P2 Death Certificate, mutation was sought to be effected in favour of the first petitioner and her brother Anoop and they were enjoying the property,

¶48

W.P.(C)No.13352/2013 2

¶49

also satisfying land tax, as borne by Ext.P3 tax receipt.

¶50

So as to honour the commitment under Ext.P1 Will, although the first petitioner tendered the amount of Rs.1000/stipulated to be paid to the concerned beneficiary vide Ext.P1 Will, the same was not accepted by the latter; which made the first petitioner and her brother to approach the Munsiff's Court, Chalakkudy by filing O.P.No.11/2012 for depositing the said amount. This was allowed as per Ext.P3 verdict and the amount was deposited. It was in the course of further proceedings, that the first petitioner sought to transfer her share in favour of her mother, the third petitioner, vide Ext.P5 and thereafter, Ext.P6 application was preferred before the first respondent for effecting mutation and to have the land tax accepted from the third petitioner. The request however was not acceded to by the first respondent, referring to the observation in Ext.P4 verdict passed by the Munsiff's Court that the second petitioner herein, who is the son of the grand mother of the first petitioner ( Janaki Amma) was no more. It is in the said circumstance, that the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court, joining hands with each other and pointing out

¶51

W.P.(C)No.13352/2013

¶52

¶53

that the observation in Ext.P4 as to the existence of the second petitioner herein was having no significance at all and that cannot be a ground to refuse to effect mutation and to accept tax from the third

¶54

petitioner in respect of the property covered by Exts.P5 and P6.

¶55

A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, paragraphs 3 and 4 of which read as follows :

¶56

“ 3. It is humbly submitted that when Asha and her mother Anandavlly approached the Village Officer for mutation of DOC No.1181/2013 executed by Asha in favour of her mother Anandavally, the Village Officer noted that in the order of O.P.No.11/2012 it was stated that Sri.Krishnankutty was no more. The Village Officer conducted a local enquiry and it was come into knowledge that Sri.Krishnankutty is still alive. Under the circumstances, the Village Officer suggested the parties that they had better correct the wrong mentioning in the court order for avoiding future confusions. So it is not correct to say that the Village Officer rejected the TR application. If the parties had any grievance related to the Transfer of Registry they could have approached the Tahsildar, Mukundapuram, the appellate authority of Transfer of registry. The

¶57

W.P.(C)No.13352/2013 4

¶58

Tahsildar has not yet received any application regarding this. As per Transfer of Registry Rules 1966, Rule 14(3) and 14(4) when only respective share alone is transferred without specifying the exact lie area and boundaries of the share is not mentioned, it need not be recognized as a new case for TR, only the transferer's name be removed and the transferee's name be included along with the other joint pattadars in the revenue records.

¶59

4. It is submitted that the parties can approach the appeal authority ( Tahsildar, Mukundapuram and Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur) along with all the related documents. The procedure as per “Section 14(4) of Kerala Transfer of Registry Rule 1966” will be followed and the basic tax will be assessed jointly in the name of Sri.Anoop and Smt.Anandavally without further delay.”

¶60

5. During the course of hearing, Sri.Ranjith Thampan, the

¶61

learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that, in view of the stand taken by the second respondent, as revealed from the counter affidavit as above, the matter can be disposed of, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue further steps in terms thereof. The submission is

¶62

W.P.(C)No.13352/2013

¶63

¶64

recorded and the matter is disposed of accordingly, directing the respondents to take necessary steps to have Ext.P6 considered and finalised, subject to satisfaction of the requirements as stated in the counter affidavit by the petitioners in tune with the relevant provisions of law. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶65

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶66

sv.

¶67

W.P.(C)No.13352/2013 6

Asha v. Village Offficer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha v. Village Offficer

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

State of Kerala Vs Thenmala Maramathu Labour Contract Co-Op Society Ltd.

Dominic Zacharias Vs the Superintending Engineer

Omanakutty Amma Vs State of Kerala and Another

K.C.Appukunju Vs Sri.K.R.Narayanan, Tahsildar

Puliparambu Desom Chandanakudam Committee Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Joshy V.K Vs Senior Geologist