Disposed

Fina K.Jose v. the Additional Tahsildar

Kerala HC2 Jan 2014WP(C)/49/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of an order regarding property mutation and directed registration in her favor. The single-judge High Court relied on previous precedents concerning mutation applications. The court directed the Additional Tahsildar to consider the mutation application within six weeks and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Additional Tahsildar to consider the mutation application within six weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Fina K.Jose Vs the Additional Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2014/12TH POUSHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 49 of 2014 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

FINA K.JOSE, W/O.SONY, THAKIDIYIL , MALAYINKEEZHU, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O, PIN-686 691

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA, PIN-685 608

¶11

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695 001

¶12

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

WP(C).No. 49 of 2014 (E)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1:TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1775/1/2013 DTD 9/7/2013 OF THODUPUZHA SRO

¶19

P2:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 4/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶20

P3:TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF FAIR VALUE REGISTER DATED NIL PERTAINING TO SY. NO. 1234 OF KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶27

========================

¶28

W.P.(C). No. 49 of 2014

¶29

-------------------------------------------Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2014

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶32

prayers:

¶33

“a) Call for the records of the case leading up to Ext.P2 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

¶34

b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing first respondent to effect mutation in village records in favour of the petitioner with respect to the property covered by Ext.P1.”

¶35

When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue can be considered and disposed of in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in Pareed Salim v. State of Kerala and Others (2012 (4) KLT 211), (wherein the decisions rendered by this Court in Shahanaz Shukoor v . Chelannoor Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899) and Jafarghan v . K.A. Kochumakkar & Others (2012 (1) KLT 491) were referred to). In paragraph 11 of the judgment, it was held that, whether any 'paddy land' has been converted or not, is not a matter for the authorities

¶36

W.P.C. No.49 of 2014 -2-

¶37

under the Transfer of Registry Rules to be gone into, especially when the Transfer of Registry Rules do not insist so. The said writ petition was allowed, with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the application for 'mutation' and dispose of the same in the light of the findings rendered above.

¶38

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶39

In the above circumstance, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application, if any, preferred by the petitioner for 'mutation' in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶41

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶42

kp/-

Fina K.Jose v. the Additional Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fina K.Jose v. the Additional Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivarajan.K Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Renuka Suresh Vs District Collector

Sri.K.P.Vijayakumar Vs M/S.Kerala Automobile Ltd.

Thankamma Kurumban Vs the Tahsildar

G.Raveendran Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Amrutha Raj Vs the State of Kerala