K.M.Raja Raja Varma v. Revenue Divisional Officer
Case brief
What is this about?
A writ petition seeking a hearing on objections before transferring registry of land was dismissed. The court held that if mutation is already effected, there is no purpose in keeping the petition pending, and the petitioner must file an appeal under the Transfer of Registry Rules.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach 2nd respondent for hearing if mutation not effected, or file appellate remedy if effected.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2013/3RD JYAISHTA 1935
WP(C).No. 24887 of 2008 (K)
PETITIONER(S):
K.M.RAJA RAJA VARMA, S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODIRI, SECRETARY AND MUKTHIAR HOLDER AGED 64, KILIMMANNOOR PALACE TRUST KILIMANOOR PALACE , KILIMANOOR, `
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
SRI.G.SIVASANKAR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2. TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYENKEEZHU TALUK
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition requiring hearing of objections before transfer of registry registration has any purpose when mutation has already been effected.
What is the appropriate remedy for the petitioner if mutation has been effected versus if it has not been effected.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
K.M.RAJA RAJA VARMA
- respondent
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
- respondent
TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYENKEEZHU TALUK
- respondent
K.K.VARMA
- respondent
T.GOPINATHAN KANTHIMATHY
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court