Disposed

Mohammedkutty v. District Collector

Kerala HC21 Oct 2016WP(C)/11494/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the inaction of revenue authorities in effecting mutation of property after a sale deed. The High Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the application, conduct proceedings allowing for contesting evidence, and issue a decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Second Respondent to consider the petitioner's mutation application, provide opportunity for contesting evidence, and pass a decision within three months.

Mohammedkutty Vs District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 11494 of 2016 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MOHAMMEDKUTTY

¶8

S/O.KUNHEEN, AGED 51 YEARS, KATTIL PEEDIYAKKAL, KODAKKAD POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676319

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶10

SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676505.

¶13

2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TIRURANGADI TALUK, TALUK HEADQUARTERS, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676306.

¶14

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARIYALLOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676312.

¶15

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 11494 of 2016 (J)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 30/06/2014 REGISTERED AS DOC. NO.1991/2014 OF TIRURANGADI SRO.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED REGISTERED AS DOC. NO.1118/2004 AND DATED 03/04/2004 PARAPPANANGADI SRO.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.5832475 DATED 12/07/2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.8841262 DATED 13/04/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5- CERTIFIED COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 05/06/1957 REGISTERED AS DOC. NO.667/1957 OF PARAPPANANGADI SRO.

¶25

EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED DATED 03/04/2004 REGISTERED AS DOC. NO.1119/2004 OF PARAPPANANGADI SRO.

¶26

EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 27/06/2006 REGISTERED AS DOC. NO.2047/2006 OF PARAPPANANGADI SRO.

¶27

EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.8841263 DATED 13/04/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.8201122 DATED 07/08/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, TIRURANGADI AND DATED 29/05/2015.

¶30

EXHIBIT P11- TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 23/06/2015 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P12- TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND DATED 03/07/2015.

¶32

EXHIBIT P13- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12/08/2015 IN PLP NO.1071/2015 PASSED BY TIRURANGADI TALUK LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE.

¶33

EXHIBIT P14- TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.364/14 PV DATED 30/01/2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXHIBIT P15- TRUE COPY OF LEGAL OPINION DATED 24/07/2015 OF ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, TIRUR AND OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

dlk

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶40

W.P.(C) No.11494 of 2016

¶41

Dated this the 21^st day of October, 2016

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

According to the petitioner, petitioner is the title holder

¶44

of 5 ¼ cents of property lying in Resurvey No.134/1 of Ariyalloor amsom and desom in Thirurangadi Taluk covered by Document No.1991/2014 of Parappanangadi SRO, evident from Ext.P1 document. The property was secured by the father of the petitioner as per Ext.P2 sale deed along with other extents of property. It is also stated, father of the petitioner was paying tax to the property. However, when an application was filed for effecting mutation of the property after Ext.P1 title document was executed in favour of the petitioner, the same is not done by the statutory authorities. Petitioner has produced Exts.P3 and P4 tax receipts to show that tax was being accepted for the said property. According to the petitioner, evident from various reports of the Village Officer, the property was in possession of the father of the petitioner and after Ext.P1 the same

¶45

W.P.(C) No.11494 of 2016

¶46

¶47

was being enjoyed by the petitioner as an owner of the said property. Therefore, it is always fair on the part of the Tahsildar to effect mutation of the property as requested for by the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that, in spite of his earnest efforts, the statutory authority is not exercising his powers, in accordance with law. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

¶48

Third respondent has filed a statement stating that the transfer of the property was effected after the demise of the Thandapper holder. It is also stated, in Malabar region especially in Malappuram District mutation was not common till 31.10.2013. But, tax was collected from the new owner by verifying the original documents. It was thereupon that the tax was collected from petitioner's father for the property mentioned in Document No.1118/2004 and it is also clear, the process of mutation was not effected to that document also. It is also stated that, the original owner, Ummadiya Umma was issueless

¶49

W.P.(C) No.11494 of 2016

¶50

¶51

and the properties sold by his sisters Pathumma and Mariyumma after her death to Sri.Kunheen, father of the petitioner during 2004, also, the mutation was not effected by the revenue authorities. It is also stated, in the application submitted by the petitioner before the Taluk Legal Service Committee a hearing was conducted but no remarks were made in the stand adopted by the revenue authority. Therefore, it is the contention that, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this writ petition.

¶52

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth.

¶53

The subject issue raised in this writ petition by the petitioner is a matter to be considered by the statutory authority under the Transfer of Registry Rules. According to the petitioner, if it is an uncontested document without conducting any enquiry the authority is vested with powers under Rules to Transfer the Registry. However, I also find, if there a serious dispute in the subject title, the Tahsildar is

¶54

W.P.(C) No.11494 of 2016

¶55

¶56

vested with ample powers under Rule 11 of the said Rules to conduct an enquiry and adjudicate the issue. Which thus means the application submitted by the petitioner before the respective statutory authority is to be considered by exercising the powers conferred under the said Rules. The said course is not adopted by the statutory authority. Therefore, in my view the whole thing can be given a quietus and accordingly, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for effecting mutation pertaining to Ext.P1 title deed and take a decision on the same, in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity for producing documents and contesting proceedings to the petitioner, as well as any other interested or affected persons and a decision shall be taken within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will also be at liberty to produce any documents and canvass the proposition of law laid down by this Court in its various judgments with respect to effecting mutation, and accepting

¶57

W.P.(C) No.11494 of 2016

¶58

¶59

the land tax during the course of adjudication proceedings

¶60

before the authority, and any courts of law.

¶61

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

SHAJI P. CHALY,JUDGE

¶64

dlk/21/10/

Mohammedkutty v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammedkutty v. District Collector

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

Kerala State Electricty Board Vs M.P. Musthafa

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Vs P.K.Shabeerali

Thomas J @ K.J.Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Mr.Jerry Sunny Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar v Vs the Regional Officer

Bennarditha Vs the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank