Remanded

B.K.N. Pillai v. the Tahasildar, Tvpm.

Kerala HC15 Jul 2016WP(C)/16731/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala upheld a writ petition challenging a Tahsildar's order rejecting a transfer of registry application. The Court quashed the order as it was passed without hearing the petitioner, remitting the matter for fresh orders after proper notice and hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P12 order quashed; matter remanded to 1st respondent to pass fresh orders after hearing all parties.

B.K.N. Pillai Vs the Tahasildar, Tvpm. — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2016/24TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 16731 of 2006 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

B.K.N.PILLAI, LAKSHMI VILAS, CHAMPION BHASKARA ROAD, KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, POOVAPPALLY VEEDU, RISHIMANGALAM, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. R.GOVINDAN NAIR,

¶13

T.C.27/1733, ASWATHY,, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

4. S.VILASINI THANKACHI, 'GEETHAM', T.C.NO.13/319, PATTOOR, KUNNUKUZHY P.O., TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

5. V.K.GEETHA DEVI THANKACHAI, 'GEETHAM', T.C.13/319, PATTOOR, KUNNUKUZHY P.O., TRIVANDRUM.

¶16

6.V.K.JAYACHANDRAN THAMPY, 'GEETHAM', T.C.13/319, PATTOOR, KUNNUKUZHY P.O., TRIVANDRUM.,

¶17

*** (ADDL.R4 TO R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER, DATED 21.10.2011 IN I.A.NO.16825/2006)**

¶18

R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR ADDL.R4,5,6 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH R1 BY SRI.C.K.JAYAKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 16731 of 2006 (P)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONR'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL DATED 11.6.1979 IN O.A.839/76, 840/76 AND 81/77. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.244/71, 412/71 AND 907/72 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DECREE PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN O.S.NO.244/71, 412/71 AND 907/72. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN A.S.85/81, 87/81, 101/81 AND 102/81. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.A.NO.147/84 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C).No.16731 of 2006

¶30

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2016

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner challenges Ext.P12 order passed by the additional Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram rejecting his application submitted for transfer of registry in respect of 20 cents of property in Survey No.1895 of Vanchiyoor Village.

¶33

Petitioner claimed Transfer of Registry in his name on the basis Ext.P1 order of the Land Tribunal, Alapuzha, which was passed on a reference from the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram in O.S.No.244/1971, 41/77 and 907/72 wherein his father was found to be entitled to the benefit under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. He also relies on the judgment Ext.P2 which culminated in Ext.P4 judgment of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram and in the judgments Ext.P5 and P6. By Ext.P12, the Tahsildar rejected his application for transfer of registry observing that petitioner did not produce the relevant documents in support of his claim even after several

¶34

W.P.C.No.16731 of 2006

¶35

¶36

directions of the 1^st respondent and even though several opportunities were given to him. It was also stated that he did not appear before the 1st respondent on several occasions, even though notice was issued to him. The 1^st respondent stated that the property in question was in the possession of the respondents therein and petitioner was running his establishment in their property. It was also found that the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court for the necessary relief.

¶37

The additional respondents 4 to 6 were get impleaded filed a counter affidavit seriously disputing the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of the Civil Court in Ext.P4 as well as the order of the Land Tribunal Ext.P1. Serious contentions are raised by either side relying on various judgments of this Court and of the Apex Court, with reference to the provisions contained in Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.

¶38

However, it is the definite contention of the petitioner that the statement in Ext.P12 that he did not appear before the 1^st respondent even after receipt of notice is incorrect. In paragraph 12 of the original petition it is stated that the

¶39

W.P.C.No.16731 of 2006

¶40

¶41

petitioner had reported in the office of the 1^st respondent on 27.10.2012, though there was no sitting and 1^st respondent was not there in the office. It is also stated that he was not able to file a hearing note. Therefore, according to the petitioner the order was passed while he was awaiting notice for the next hearing. Similarly, in ground 3 of the writ petition also petitioner has stated that the statement in Ext.P12 that he did not appear after receipt of notice was incorrect. According to the petitioner Ext.P12 order was passed without hearing him and therefore, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶42

1^st respondent has not filed any counter affidavit. The learned Government Pleader submitted that he does not have any instructions also.

¶43

In the above circumstances, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by either side, I remit the matter to the 1^st respondent to pass fresh orders after hearing all the parties. For the purpose of re-consideration I quash Ext.P12 and direct the 1^st respondent to pass fresh orders after hearing all the parties, after giving notice to the petitioner, respondent No.3 and additional respondents 4 and 5. Fresh orders shall be passed

¶44

W.P.C.No.16731 of 2006

¶45

¶46

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶48

Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶49

/TRUE COPY/

¶50

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶51

B.K.N. Pillai v. the Tahasildar, Tvpm.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.K.N. Pillai v. the Tahasildar, Tvpm.

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

N.Balaraman Vs Addl.Tahsildar, Kollam.

Manager,. Wallardie Estate Vs Secy,Kerala State Estate Labour Union

Valluvanad Hospital Complex Limited Vs the Employees Provident Fund Appellate T

K.v.Varkey Vs Monsi.T.S.

P.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs the Corporation of Kollam & Another

T.Sasidharan Vs K.S.R.T.C.