Allowed

K.Babu v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC29 Nov 2016WP(C)/14003/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court heard three connected writ petitions challenging orders cancelling transfers of registry. Holding that the petitioners were not adequately heard and clarifying jurisdiction under the Transfer of Registry Rules, the Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the Tahsildar to reconsider applications after issuing proper notices.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 27.02.2016 and 20.04.2016 quashed; Tahsildar directed to take action after issuing notices to interested persons.

K.Babu Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — 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

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 14003 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. K.BABU, MITHUN HOUSE,THOPPUVILA VEEDU, THANNIMOODU P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

2. SASIKALA, THOPPUVILA VEEDU, THANNIMOODU P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

3. SHEEJA, GEETHANJALI NIVAS, THANNIMOODU P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶13

2. A.K.SHAJAHAN, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, KADAYARA HOUSE, PERUMATHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 303

¶14

*3. K.SANTHOSH KUMAR,

¶15

ADVOCATE,TC NO.28/1292, SASATH VILLA, KUMARAPURAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011 (CORRECTED)

¶16

*THE ADDRESS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT CORRECTED AS 'T.C.NO.28/1292,' SARATH VILLA, KUNNUMPURAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶17

INSTEAD OF 'TC.NO.28/1292, SASATH VILLA,KUMARAPURAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011

¶18

*AS PER ORDER DATED 6/10/2016 IN IA.NO.12284/16.

¶19

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN VYASAN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-11-2016, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 22925/2016 AND WPC.NO. 23437/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sts

¶22

WP(C).No. 14003 of 2016 (A)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.179/1995 DATED 16-1-1995 OF BALARAMAPURAM SRO. P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1460/1995 DATED 24-4-1995 OF BALARAMAPURAM SRO. P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 2-5-2012 PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED FROM THE ATHIYANNUR VILLAGE OFFICE. P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE PASS BOOK PERTAINING TO IAY 2005-06 SCHEME ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.123/1997 DATED 29-1-1997 OF BALARAMAPURAM SRO. P6 : A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 15-2-2016 PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED FROM THE ATHIYANNUR VILLAGE OFFICE. P7 : A TRUE COPY OF THE PASS BOOK PERTAINING TO THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED FROM THE KANJIRAMKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. P8 : A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27-5-2004 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. P9 : A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1796/1999 DATED 14-6-1999 OF BALARAMAPURAM SRO. P10 : A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 19-2-2016 PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY OF THE 3RD PETITIONER ISSUED FROM THE ATHIYANNUR VILLAGE OFFICE. P11 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/22451/15/D.DIS DATED 27-2-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) Nos.14003, 22925 & 23437 of 2016

¶32

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The captioned writ petitions are in relation to orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram and the Additional Tahsildar respectively, under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. Since the subject issue raised in the writ petitions are common in nature, I heard them together and propose to deliver a common judgment.

¶35

W.P.(C) Nos.14003 and 23437 of 2016 are filed challenging the order of the 1^st respondent dated 27.02.2016, produced as Exts.P11 and P4 respectively. In W.P.(C) No.22925 of 2016, petitioners are challenging the order of the 2^nd respondent, Additional Tahsildar, dated 20.04.2016. As per the impugned orders, the transfer of registry effected in favour of the petitioners under the Transfer of Registry Rules is cancelled and restored in favour of the party respondents in the writ petitions. The main grievance voiced by the petitioners is that petitioners were not heard before the impugned orders are passed. That apart, it is contended, the

¶36

W.P.(C) No.14003/16 & conn. cases 2

¶37

Revenue Divisional Officer did not have any power under the Transfer of Registry Rules to entertain an application for cancellation of transfer of registry, since under the said Rules, powers are vested with the Village Officer and Tahsildar, and the Revenue Divisional Officer is an appellate authority as provided under Rule 18 of the Rules, 1966. These are the background facts of the writ petitions, which persuaded the petitioners to approach this Court by filing the writ petitions.

¶38

Heard respective counsel, and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶39

I have gone through the impugned orders in the writ petitions. In the orders, it is stated that notices were issued to the petitioners and some of the petitioners were heard. Going by the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules, from the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, a revision is maintainable before the District Collector. However, since the petitioners have a case that they were not heard before the impugned orders are passed, and from the impugned orders, it is not clear as to which of the petitioners were heard, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned

¶40

W.P.(C) No.14003/16 & conn. cases 3

¶41

orders specified above are liable to be set aside, and the Tahsildar of the competent jurisdiction can be directed to take appropriate action, after receiving requisite applications from the party respondents. The said course, also will be a viable and feasible method to have a quietus to the whole issue. Accordingly, I do so. Anyhow, on receipt of the said applications, notices shall be issued to the petitioners herein or any other interested or affected persons and attain finality to the same within three months from the date of receipt of the application from the party respondents.

¶42

The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.22925 of 2016 have a contention that they have no manner of connection with the issues raised by the petitioners in the other writ petitions. However, the same is also a subject matter to be considered by the Tahsildar in accordance with law, and as per the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.

¶43

The writ petitions are allowed accordingly, and the impugned orders dated 27.02.2016 and 20.04.2016 are quashed, leaving open the remedy of the party respondents to approach the Additional Tahsildar Taluk Office, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram, and seek necessary reliefs by submitting

¶44

W.P.(C) No.14003/16 & conn. cases 4

¶45

proper applications, which shall attain a finality as directed

¶46

above.

¶47

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶48

//true copy//

¶49

P.S. to Judge

¶50

St/30.11.2016

K.Babu v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Babu v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

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

M/S.G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs Cochin Inernationl Airport Ltd.

Jose V.J. Vs State of Kerala

D.Johny Vs State of Kerala

Amminikutty Vs Sasikala

Vivek G. Vs State of Kerala

Branch Manager Vs Lali Lawrence