Remanded

Heleena v. the District Collector, Idukki

Kerala HC2 Sept 2013WP(C)/13399/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that mere descriptive records cannot determine land nature; physical nature must be ascertained under Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner. The respondents are directed to effect the petitioner's mutation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to effect mutation of the petitioner's property within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment copy.

Heleena Vs the District Collector, Idukki — Kerala HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/11TH BHADRA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 13399 of 2012 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

HELEENA, W/O.JOSEPH, AVIMOOTTIL HOUSE, VELLATHAM KARA, UDUMBANOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MATHEW VARKEY, AVIMOOTTIL HOUSE, VELLATHAM KARA, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN

¶8

SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

--------------1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI 685601

¶11

THE TAHSILDAR THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI 685584

¶12

THE VILLAGE OFFICER UDAMBANNOOR IDUKKI 685596 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SANJEETHA K.R

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

MNS

¶15

WP(C).No. 13399 of 2012 (Y)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 21-12-2009

¶19

EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9-08-2011 EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.PV 41/11 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO B2-5141/11 DATED 8-12-2011

¶21

EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.C 9-32070/11 DATED 3-11-2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶23

//TRUE COPY//

¶24

P.A TO JUDGE

¶25

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶26

¶27

W.P.(c) No. 13399 OF 2012

¶28

¶29

Dated this the 2^nd day of September, 2013

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner is stated as the owner of 1 Acre and 18 cents of

¶32

land in Re-Sy.No.213/5 in Block No. 42 of Thodupuzha Taluk covered

¶33

by Ext.P1 sale deed. According to the petitioner, the said property is

¶34

not a 'Paddy land' or 'Wet land' as defined under Section 2(xii) and 2 (xiii) of Act 28 of 2008. The grievance of the petitioner is because of

¶35

the refusal on the part of the third respondent to effect mutation, stating

¶36

that the property is described as 'Paddy Land' in the revenue records.

¶37

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶38

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, mere

¶39

description of the land in the revenue records or elsewhere cannot be

¶40

the sole basis for deciding the issue and that the physical nature of the

¶41

property has to be ascertained. The matter has to be dealt with in the

¶42

light of the decision in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner

¶43

( 2010 (2) KLT 617). Accordingly, there will be a direction to the

¶44

W.P.(C)No.13399/2012

¶45

¶46

respondents to effect mutation of the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 sale deed, after satisfying the other statutory requirements, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.

¶48

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶49

sv.

¶50

W.P.(C)No.13399/2012 2

Heleena v. the District Collector, Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heleena v. the District Collector, Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashraf Vs the District Collector,Kannur

Archana Varghese Vs Pallickal Grama Panchayat

Dr. K.N. Satish Vs the State of Kerala

M/S.Vallikatt Constructions Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Saju John Vs the District Collector

V.K. Thomas Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala