Dismissed

Shibu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jul 2014WP(C)/2160/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging mutation entries in a Revenue Court proceeding, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition holding that while the petitioner's appeal against the sale is pending, the purchasers are entitled to seek mutation changes subject to the final outcome of the adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as petitioner is not entitled to any relief given pending adjudication.

Shibu Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2014/18TH ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 2160 of 2008 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SHIBU, S/O.VASUDEVAN, KUNNEPARAMBU, WARD NO.7, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.RATHEESH SMT.SUMA RATHEESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,

¶12

VAIKOM TALUK, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

3. SARASWATHI AMMA,

¶14

MAHIMA BHAVAN, NADUVILE VILLAGE, CHALAPPARAMBU, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

4. C.V.MAHESH, MAHIMA BHAVAN, NADUVILE VILLAGE, CHALAPPARAMBU,

¶16

VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVEENDRAN R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE

¶18

SRI.V.J.JOHN SRI.C.I.ABRAHAM SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Msd.

¶21

WP(C).No. 2160 of 2008 (F)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶24

--------------------------------------

¶25

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 31.07.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.12.2007 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXHIBIT R4(1) : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DATED 23.04.2007.

¶30

EXHIBIT R4(2) : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.04.2007 OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

W.P.(C).No. 2160 of 2008

¶36

Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2014

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

¶39

Petitioner has approached this Court inter alia seeking for a

¶40

direction to the 2^nd respondent not to take steps for mutation of registry or incorporating the names of respondents 3 and 4 in the revenue records till attaining finality of the adjudication proceedings in the matter relating to sale conducted by Recovery Officer. Issue involved is with reference to 30 cents of property in Sy.No.73/24-B and 73/24A of Naduvile Village in Vaikom Taluk.

¶41

The facts involved in the case would disclose that the petitioner claims to be the original owner of the property. The same came to be sold in an auction conducted by the Recovery Officer attached to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner submitted a claim petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and

¶42

sought for cancellation of the sale, which came to be rejected as the application was filed after the period prescribed for the same. Petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery

¶43

W.P.(C).No. 2160 of 2014

¶44

¶45

Tribunal which is pending consideration. While so, steps were taken by the revenue authorities at the instance of the party respondents 3 and 4 to correct the mutation entries in the village records, which is challenged by the petitioner.

¶46

Apparently as matters stand today, the property which

¶47

is claimed by the petitioner is purchased by the party respondents 3 and 4. The sale have been confirmed by the Recovery Officer. Hence they are entitled to get mutation of the property in their names by changing the relevant entries in the village records. Merely for the reason that the mutation entries are effected on the basis of the sale certificate issued by the Recovery Officer, it does not mean that the petitioner’s right will be lost for ever. Petitioner’s right to get the property is always subject to the result of the appeal pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and if the petitioner is able to get a favourable order setting aside the sale, definitely, the petitioner can get correction of the mutation entries in the village records. Until such time, as matters stand now, the respondents 3 and 4 can seek for change in the mutation entries.

¶48

W.P.(C).No. 2160 of 2014

¶49

¶50

Under these circumstances, I do not think the petitioner is

¶51

entitled to for any relief in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.

¶52

Sd/

¶53

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶54

jm/

Shibu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibu v. State of Kerala

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

Joseph Antony Vs Lincy Thomas and Others

The Tathamangalam Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.P.502 Vs State of Kerala

Jossy Thomas @ Josemon Vs Mohandas

N Somakumar Vs Kerala Water Authority

Devu.S.Baiju, Rep.by Her Father Natural Guardian Baiju.S Vs the Secretary to Government

K.K.Anil @ Anilkumar Vs District Collector