Partly allowed

Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Aug 2016RP/569/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the condonation of delay in filing a review petition. The Court clarified that pendant ceiling proceedings do not bar document registration, and revenue officials must effect transfer of registry subject to the ceiling proceedings outcome.

What did the court decide?

C.M. Application to condone delay allowed; Review Petition allowed with clarification on registration and transfer of registry during ceiling proceedings.

Muhammed Basheer Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/10TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 569 of 2016 () IN WP(C).30106/2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30106/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 02-11-2015

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S):

¶8

MUHAMMED BASHEER, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 41, VARIKKATH HOUSE, VADAPURAM P.O, MAMBAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.K.M.SHERIFF SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA SRI.JOSEPH KURIAN VALLAMATTAM SRI.M.B.SOORI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 698 001.

¶12

2. THE TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR TAKUK, MALAPPURAM - 677 110.

¶13

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MAMBAD VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK, PULIKALODY P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 542.

¶14

4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 542.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶19

C.M.Appl.No.281 of 2016 & R.P.No.569 of 2016 in W.P.(C).No.30106 of 2015 ------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

C.M.Appl.No.281 of 2016

¶22

This is an application to condone the delay of 215 days in filing the review petition. Taking into consideration the explanation offered, this Court is of the view that the delay can be condoned. Accordingly, this C.M. Application is allowed. R.P

¶23

The review petitioners are the writ petitioners. This Court by the judgment dated 02.11.2015 directed the registering authority to register any document executed by the petitioners notwithstanding involvement of the land in question under ceiling proceedings in terms of Kerala Land Reforms Act. The petitioners submit that the revenue officials will not effect transfer of registry even if registration is effected as there was no direction in the judgment. Apprehending the stand of the respondents, the petitioners come up with this review.

¶24

R.P.No.569/2016

¶25

¶26

It is to be noted that ceiling proceedings has not come to a finality. Certainly, if the the property is liable to be surrendered under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, respondents are free to proceed against the land in accordance with law. However, involvement in ceiling proceedings will not bar registration of the documents, that is the reason this Court directed registering authority to register the documents in accordance with law. This Court is also of the view that the revenue officials shall also effect transfer of registry subject to outcome of the ceiling proceedings based on registration of the documents.

¶27

Review petition is disposed of as above.

¶28

Sd/- (A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE)

¶29

/TRUE COPY/

¶30

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶31

Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Basheer 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangeetha G.Nair Vs Vijayan, Dy.Director of Collegiate Education, Kozhikode

Sivaraman Nair Vs Sri.Sunil Joseph Fernandez

Jose D Kelleli Vs Rajeev

C.K.Abdul Salam Vs K.C Shahu

K. Mohammed Madani Vs Rajendran

The Food Corporation of India Vs C.K.Abdul Salam