Allowed

Chathan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC31 May 2016WP(C)/10541/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition where petitioners faced inability to register a sale deed due to undetermined fair value of property. The Court directed revenue authorities to finalize fair value calculations and the Sub Registrar to register documents thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Second Respondent to finalize fair value proceedings within two months and the Fourth Respondent to communicate the value to the Third Respondent for registration.

Chathan Vs the 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2016/10TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10541 of 2016 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. CHATHAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, NEDUMKULANGARA MALAYIL HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. VINOD N.R., S/O.RAMANKUTTY, AGED 44 YEARS, NANATTUVETTIL HOUSE, KUZHIKATTUSSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 683.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR, SMT.P.SREESHA.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶12

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -682 001.

¶13

3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, KAKKANAD, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682 030.

¶14

4. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -682 011.

¶15

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682 030.

¶16

6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD -682 030.

¶17

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rs.

¶20

WP(C).No. 10541 of 2016 (P)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶23

EXHIBIT P1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 12/08/1986.
EXHIBIT P2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 06/08/2015.
EXHIBIT P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED 05/08/2015.
EXHIBIT P4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 27/04/2015.
EXHIBIT P5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 31/07/2015.
EXHIBIT P6:	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 10/08/2015.
EXHIBIT P7:	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 10/08/2015.
EXHIBIT P8:	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE FAIR VALUE NOTIFICATION FOR PROPERTY LYING IN SY.NO.90 OF KAKKANAD VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P9:	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE FAIR VALUE NOTIFICATION FOR PROPERTY LYING IN SY. NO.91 OF KAKKANAD VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P10:	A TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF 2ND PETITIONER.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶29

W.P.(C).No. 10541 of 2016

¶30

Dated this the 31^st day of May, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The first petitioner owns an item of property.

¶33

Out of the said property, he intends to sell a portion to the second petitioner. The grievance of the petitioners is that the fair value of the said property is yet to be determined by the authorities under the Kerala Stamp Act and as such, they are unable to get the intended sale deed registered.

¶34

On 29.03.2016, this Court passed the

¶35

following interim order:

¶36

“The petitioners claim title based on Ext.P1 patta. The petitioner wants to convey the property covered by Ext.P1 patta. The petitioners submit that for want of fixation of fair value, he is unable to execute any document.

¶37

The learned Government Pleader on the other hand submits that it is a Government land. Therefore, the petitioners have no right over the property. The petitioners

¶38

W.P.(C).No. 10541 of 2016

¶39

-2-

¶40

point out that it is only a mistake.

¶41

This Court is of the view that the Tahsildar shall identify the property covered by Ext.P1 patta and report before this Court. Appropriate report shall be filed within two months after conducting inspection.”

¶42

When the matter was taken up for admission

¶43

today, the learned Government Pleader submitted that as directed by this Court as per the interim order dated 29.03.2016, the fourth respondent, the Tahsildar concerned, conducted necessary enquiries and submitted a report to the second respondent as to the fair value of the property and the second respondent will expedite the formalities for finalising the fair value of the property of the first petitioner in accordance with the the Kerala Stamp Act.

¶44

In the light of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to finalise the proceedings for fixing the fair value of the property of the first petitioner in accordance with the Kerala Stamp Act,

¶45

W.P.(C).No. 10541 of 2016

¶46

-3-

¶47

within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also directed that the fourth respondent shall issue a communication to the third respondent as to the fair value of the property of the first petitioner within a week from today and the third respondent shall register the document, if any, presented for registration by the petitioners based on the fair value of the property so determined by the fourth r espondent.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶50

bpr

Chathan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chathan v. the 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

Joe Antony Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

Sherin John Vs the Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore

T.V Mathew Vs the Cheif Engineer(I&a)

C.I.Varghese Vs the Divisional Forest Officer and Others

Rasiya N.K Vs the Regional Manager

P.R.Geetha Vs State of Kerala