Allowed

P.M.Mary v. District Collector

Kerala HC16 Nov 2016WP(C)/32957/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the delay in issuing a corrected land status certificate containing clerical errors regarding survey number, land area, names of parties, and the property holder. The Court directed issuance of the corrected certificate within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to issue a corrected land status certificate/duplicate patta within three weeks from receipt of the judgment copy.

P.M.Mary Vs District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/25TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 32957 of 2010 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.M.MARY, W/O.M.V.DEVASSIA, AGED 76 YEARS, T.C.NO.10/1444/4,MADAPPAT HOUSE,DEVAHARSHAM, ELANGAM GARDEN,THAMALAM,POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.

¶11

2. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,UDUMBANCHOLA.

¶12

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, RAJAKKAD VILLAGE,IDUKKI.

¶13

4. UNION BANK OF INDIA REP.BY MANAGER, RAJAKKAD BRANCH,RAJAKKAD, IDUKKI.

¶14

R1-3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER R BY SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 32957 of 2010 (T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2008-09

¶21

P2: COPY OF THE FAMILY HEIR SHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 9/5/2000

¶22

P3: COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RAJAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 27/10/10

¶23

P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29/12/84 ISSUED BY THE THODUPUZHA COURT.

¶24

P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/2/2002 OF THE R

¶25

P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6/10/2001 THE R4

¶26

P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3/7/2004 ISSUED BY THE R2

¶27

P8: COPY OF THE LAND STATUS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R2

¶28

P9: COPY OF THE LETTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA RAJAKKAD

¶29

P10: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/8/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2

¶30

P11: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INFORMATION OFFICER/TAHSILDAR

¶31

P12: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/7/10 ISSUED BY THE R2

¶32

P13: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/9/10 OF THE TALUK APPELLATE AUTHORITY.

¶33

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.V.ASHA J.

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.32957 of 2010

¶40

--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2016

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

The petitioner's grievance is over the inordinate delay in issuing a corrected certificate of ownership in respect of her property.

¶43

Petitioner's case is that the patta as per L.A.322/61 of Udumbanchola taluk issued to her husband late M.V.Devassia in respect of 27 cents of land in Sy.No.3/14/3 of Rajakkad Village. The original Patta was deposited with the 4^th respondent-Union Bank of India, Rajakkad, when her husband stood as a surety for a loan availed by one shri C.J.Jose. But subsequently, when the bank filed a suit-O.S.No.14/84 before the Sub Court, Thodupuzha, the Bank produced that original of the patta deposited with them, before the Sub Court, Thodupuzha. But the said document was not returned to the Bank from the court. On enquires regarding the same, the Bank issued a letter Ext.P5 informing the petitioner that the original pattayam was deposited in the Sub Court, Thodupuzha in the year 1984 and the court destroyed the same in the year 1999 and the court authorities had issued a certificate regarding destruction of pattayam. The Bank informed the petitioner that they were taking steps for getting a duplicate pattayam through the District Collector,

¶44

W.P.(C).No.32957 of 2010 2

¶45

Idukki. After repeated requests, the Tahsildar Udumbanchola issued Ext.P8 certificate dated 08.07.2004, styled as 'land status certificate'. But the certificate contains several typing mistakes; the Sy.No. as well as the name of the person who was in possession were not shown correctly. Instead of L.A.No.322/61, it is wrongly typed as L.A.No.332/61, similarly in the place of C.J.Jose, it is typed as V.J.Jose, in the second and fifth line of the certificate. Similarly the petitioner's name is also typed incorrectly as Smt.Mary P.A instead of Smt.Mary P.M in the 9^th line of the certificate.

¶46

Petitioner filed this writ petition thereafter, since no action was taken even after several representations before various authorities, requesting to issue a duplicate certificate after carrying out correction.

¶47

I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶48

From the land status certificate Ext.P8, it is seen that the certificate is issued full of mistakes. Survey No., L.A.No., the name of person who was in possession as well as the name of petitioner are not typed correctly. The respondents do not have any dispute over the fact that the land as described in Ext.P8 certificate was assigned to her as per L.A.No.332/61. From the communications of the Bank, which refers to the certificate issued by Sub Court, Thodupuzha, it is clear that the pattayam was destroyed by the court and patta was issued to the petitioner's husband as per L.A.No.322/61. The certificate Ext.P8 is issued to her with full of

¶49

W.P.(C).No.32957 of 2010

¶50

¶51

typing errors with respect to survey no. etc. The initial of Shri Jose who availed loan from the Union Bank of India for whom the pattayam was deposited as security was also incorrectly stated as V.J.Jose instead of C.J.Jose. Further the initial of the petitioner who is the wife of the pattayadar late M.V.Devassia is shown as P.M instead of P.A.

¶52

In the above circumstances, it is only just and proper that petitioner is not further harassed unnecessarily. Once, Tahsildar chose to issue a land status certificate as per Ext.P8 and the mistakes were pointed out, the respondents ought to have issued a certificate after carrying out the corrections. It is seen that Ext.P8 was issued as early as on 08.07.2004. It is highly unfortunate that the corrected certificate or a duplicate certificate is not issued to the petitioner so far.

¶53

In the above circumstances, the respondents are directed to see that a corrected land status certificate/duplicate patta is issued to the petitioner with respect to the 27 cents of land in Sy.No.3/14/3 of Rajakkad Village within a period of 'three weeks' from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶56

P.M.Mary v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Mary 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

Issac C.V Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs St.Antony'S High School

Celine Jiji Vs the R.D.O & Others

Suresh Kumar C. & Another Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Ouseph Antnony Alias Kochappu Vs the Assistant Engineer

D.Ravi Vs State of Kerala