Allowed

Sam K George v. the District Collector, Pathanamthitta

Kerala HC9 Jun 2016WP(C)/3342/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the refusal of mutation on the ground that criminal proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC were pending against the original vendor. The court allowed the petition, quashed the communication, and directed mutation, noting proceedings were initiated after the petitioner's vendor had acquired the property.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Ext.P6 communication quashed; respondents directed to effect mutation of the property forthwith.

Sam K George Vs the District Collector, Pathanamthitta — 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

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3342 of 2014 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SAM K GEORGE, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, KUZHIYILEMURIYIL HOUSE, OMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.J.DAVID, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OMALLOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANZOOR ALIE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 3342 of 2014 (P)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.616/2012 DATED 29/2/2012.

¶20

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2176/91 DATED 6/9/1991.

¶21

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 9/3/1987 EXECUTED BY A.K.VARGHESE IN FAVOUR OF RAGHAVAN NAIR.

¶22

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 9/3/1987 EXECUTED BY A.K.VARGHESE IN FAVOUR OF SMT.JAYAKUMARI.

¶23

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICTION DATED 23/1/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.41/14 DATED 23/1/2014 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.3342 of 2014

¶32

Dated 9^th June, 2016.

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 communication. As per Ext.P6, the third respondent informed the petitioner that the application preferred by him for effecting mutation in respect of the property purchased by him on 29.2.2012 from one K.T.John by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed cannot be considered. The reason stated in Ext.P6 for declining the request of the petitioner for effecting mutation is that proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are pending against the predecessor of his vendor A.K.Varghese.

¶35

The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit supporting the stand taken in Ext.P6 communication.

¶36

The materials on record indicate that the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed belonged to A.K.Varghese referred to in Ext.P6 and that he sold the property to one Raghavan Nair and Jayakumari as early as on 9.3.1987. The aforesaid persons

¶37

WPC 3342/14

¶38

¶39

have later sold this property to the vendor of the petitioner on 6.9.1991. Proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are seen initiated against A.K.Varghese long after the sale of the property. The specific contention raised by the petitioner in the writ petition that the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been initiated against A.K.Varghese only during 1999 is not seen refuted by the respondents in the counter affidavit. In other words, when the aforesaid proceedings was initiated, A.K.Varghese had no right in the property. The refusal to effect mutation of the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 sale deed, in the circumstances, is unsustainable.

¶40

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P6 is quashed and the respondents are directed to effect mutation of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed forthwith.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶43

tgs

Sam K George v. the District Collector, Pathanamthitta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sam K George v. the District Collector, Pathanamthitta

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

M/S.Cochin Smart City Properties Pvt.Ltd., Rep. by Its Director, Mr.P.P.Jose Vs M/S. Traders Tower Constructions & Property Developers Pvt.Ltd

Mandal Govindarajan Vs District Collector

Nalupurappattil Peedikayil Umaimath Vs the District Collector , Kannur

Pullat Eli @ Eliyamma Vs the Thahsildar

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Soniya Shibu @ Soniya Boben Vs Union of India