Disposed

Mohanan v. Village Offier, Vazhakkulam Village

Kerala HC5 Nov 2013WP(C)/22800/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order in a writ petition concerning mutation of land purchased at a revenue sale. The court directed the Village Officer to effect mutation and accept land tax from the petitioner within one month, subject to further proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act.

What did the court decide?

A direction to the first respondent to effect mutation of the land covered by the sale certificate and accept land tax within one month, subject to Section 83(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act.

Mohanan Vs Village Offier, Vazhakkulam Village — 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

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/14TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 22800 of 2013 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHANAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 57 YEARS, TAX CONSULTANT, PUNNELIL HOUSE, VADAKKUM BHAGOM KARA, MANJAPRA VILLAGE AND POST, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN - 683 581 NOW RESIDING AT LATHA MANDIRAM HOUSE PADINJARE KADUNGALLUR KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE PARUR TALUK, WEST KADUNGALLUR POST,PIN - 683 110.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BASIL MATHEW SRI.NAVEEN GOPAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKULAM VILLAGE,ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶12

ERNAKULAM, COLLECPTORATE, KAKKANAD.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.T.LILLY.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

KKS

¶16

WP(C).No. 22800 of 2013 (Y)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE NO. 4301/2007 DATED 07/05/2007.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF LAWFUL SUCCESSION OF PURCHASERS DATED 29/03/2007 ISSUED BY DY.THAHASILDAR,KFC.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION MADE BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 03/04/2007.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 02/10/2010. ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 02/10/2010 EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION FOR MUTATION.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/01/2012 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 11/06/2012.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P9-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/04/2013.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

KKS

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 22800 of 2013

¶35

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioner is stated as the owner of the property having an extent of 21.35 Ares of land comprised in Re. Survey No. 108/5 of Vazhakkulam village, by virtue of Ext. P1 sale certificate dated 07.05.2007 issued pursuant to the revenue sale, whereby the property of the defaulter was put to sale at the instance of Kerala Financial Corporation for realization of the amount due to them. In the course of further proceedings, the petitioner preferred application for effecting mutation as early as on 02.10.2010, which however was not acceded to by the first respondent/Village Officer, referring to pendency of revision petition filed by the erstwhile owners as informed by the Commissioner for Land Revenue, vide P6 communication dt. 18.01.2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the interim direction given by the Commissioner for Land Revenue to the first respondent is no more in existence, in view of dismissal of the revision petition by the Land Revenue Commissioner, as borne by Ext. P7 order dated 11.06.2012. In spite of production of Ext. P7 order before the sixth respondent,

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 22800 of 2013

¶39

: 2 :

¶40

seeking to effect mutation also by filing Ext. P8, it was informed that no such order was communicated to the said respondent by the Land Revenue Commissioner. In the said circumstances, the petitioner sought to approach the Commissioner for Land Revenue by filing necessary application and the petitioner was intimated as per Ext. P9 that finalization of revision petition vide Ext. P7 has already been communicated to the concerned Village Officer and Sub Registrar concerned. In spite of these proceedings nothing has transpired in the positive till date, which made the petitioner to approach this Court.

¶41

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶42

After hearing both the sides and going through the pleadings and proceedings, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to have the mutation effected in the name of the petitioner, in so far as the proceedings of revenue sale have become final. Even otherwise, it is settled law that mutation is to be effected in terms of Transfer of Registry Rules and the mutation by itself does not declare or divest title to anybody. In the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider application preferred by the petitioner to effect mutation of the property covered by Ext. P1, which forms subject matter of Exts.

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 22800 of 2013

¶44

: 3 :

¶45

P6 and P7, and necessary steps shall be taken to have the proceedings finalized and also to accept tax from the petitioner in terms of Kerala Land Tax Act so as to enable the petitioner to enjoy the property in a better manner. The proceedings as above shall be finalized, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶46

It is also made clear that the orders to be passed as above to effect mutation and acceptance of land tax shall be subject to further proceedings, if any, before the Government by virtue of Section 83 (2) of the Revenue Recovery Act.

¶47

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶48

kmd

Mohanan v. Village Offier, Vazhakkulam Village

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan v. Village Offier, Vazhakkulam Village

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Puliparambu Desom Chandanakudam Committee Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Joshy V.K Vs Senior Geologist

Mohanakrishnan Vs the District Collector

P.T.Abdussamad Vs District Collector, Malappuram

Alexander George Vs the Chief General Manager