Partly allowed

Aswin v. District Collector

Kerala HC9 Jun 2014WP(C)/691/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside orders cancelling a mutation by an Additional Tahsildar due to violation of natural justice. The petitioner was denied time to produce documents. The matter is remitted to the Tahsildar for reconsideration within two months after providing a fair opportunity to all parties.

What did the court decide?

Orders P12, P15, and P19 set aside; matter remitted to Third Respondent for reconsideration within two months.

Aswin Vs District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/19TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 691 of 2014 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ASWIN,

¶8

S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, 'POURNAMI', KOTTIYODU, P.O. ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶12

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶13

3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶14

4. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶15

5. SUDAKSHANA THAMPI,

¶16

D/O. NARAYANAN THAMPI, SARANYA, G-353, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 016.

¶17

R1- 4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA REVEENDRAN R5 BY ADVS. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY

¶18

SRI.R.SANJITH

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 691 of 2014 (J)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

EXHIBIT-P1TRUE COPY OF THE MUTATION CERTIFICATE NO.11307 IN THE NAME OF SMT. GEETHA VASANTH

¶25

EXHIBIT-P2TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 18/06/1998.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P3TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 07/04/2008.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P4TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 13/10/1999. EXHIBIT-P5TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION AND NON ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATE

¶28

EXHIBIT-P6TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P6(A)-TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 16/10/2007

¶30

EXHIBIT-P7TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 05/05/2008.

¶31

EXHIBIT-P8TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 17/07/2008.

¶32

EXHIBIT-P9TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 19/04/2010.

¶33

EXHIBIT-P10- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21/06/2012.

¶34

EXHIBIT-P11TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/06/2012.

¶35

EXHIBIT-P12- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/06/2012.

¶36

EXHIBIT-P13- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/07/2007.

¶37

EXHIBIT-P14- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 20/09/2012.

¶38

EXHIBIT-P15- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/11/2012.

¶39

EXHIBIT-P16- TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 21/12/2012.

¶40

EXHIBIT-P17- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION DATED 21/12/2012.

¶41

EXHIBIT-P18- TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 1704/2013

¶42

EXHIBIT-P19- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/11/2013

¶43

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.M.Shaffique, J.

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.(C)No.691 of 2014

¶51

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

¶52

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2014.

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

1.Petitioner challenges Exts.P12, P15 and P19 orders. Ext.P12 is

¶55

an order passed by the Additional Tahsildar, cancelling the mutation in the name of the petitioner in respect of the property, which, according to him, he is having absolute title and possession. The said proceedings came to be issued on the basis of a complaint by the 5^th respondent herein. According to the petitioner, proper opportunity was not given to produce materials before the third respondent. Though an appeal was filed, the same came to be rejected on the ground that appeal is not maintainable. Petitioner preferred a revision before the District Collector who confirmed the view expressed by the third

¶56

respondent in Ext.P12 order.

¶57

W.P.(C)No.691 of 2014

¶58

-:2:-

¶59

2.Perusal of Ext.P19 would indicate that the first respondent was only accept the findings made by the third respondent. There is no independent consideration of the matter in issue.

¶60

3.As far as the third respondent is concerned, though the petitioner had requested time to produce necessary records, no such opportunity was granted. Notice of hearing was served on the petitioner on 28.6.2012 and the order was passed on the next day itself. If the petitioner had requested for time to produce documents to substantiate his claim, it was proper on the part of the third respondent to have granted sufficient time. Without doing so, an order was passed on the next day itself, Such an action on the part of the third respondent really amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. This aspect of the matter, has not been considered by the first respondent as well.

¶61

4.Under these circumstances, the orders impugned, Exts.P12, P15

¶62

W.P.(C)No.691 of 2014 -:3:-

¶63

andP19, are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent for re-consideration, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner and other affected parties sufficient oppotunity to produce documents. The entire exercise shall be done, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶64

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶65

A.M.Shaffique, Judge.

¶66

sl.

Aswin v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aswin v. District Collector

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

A. Ansari Vs District Collector

Ali Muhammed Vs the District Geologist

Mohammed Ansar Vs the District Collector

P.M.Chackochan Vs E.K.Bharath Bhushan

P.Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Rukkammal Vs the Village Officer