Disposed

Poonchola Lakshmi v. the Village Officer, Ndiyirippu Village

Kerala HC18 Oct 2016WP(C)/4795/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Additional Tahsildar to adjudicate a serious dispute regarding the petitioner's mutation application for transferred property within two months, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent (Additional Tahsildar) to consider the petitioner's mutation application within two months after providing an opportunity of hearing.

Poonchola Lakshmi Vs the Village Officer, Ndiyirippu Village — Property and Title | 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 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/26TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4795 of 2016 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

POONCHOLA LAKSHMI, W/O.POONCHOLA SASIDHARAN, POONCHOLA HOUSE, ARTS COLLEGE POST, KOZHIKODE-673 018.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDIYIRIPPU VILLAGE, KONDOTTY TALUK, KONDOTTY PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 638.

¶11

2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KONDOTTY TALUK, KONDOTTY PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505.

¶13

4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505.

¶14

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 4795 of 2016 (Y)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.5767/2014 DT 19-11-2014.

¶21

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 1 UNDER RULE 3(A)(III) OF THE TRANSFER OF REGISTRY RULES, 1966, DT 13-3-2015.

¶22

P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 23-3-2015.

¶23

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER'S NOTICE DT 30-3-2015 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 17-4-2015.

¶25

P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 12-6-2015.

¶26

P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR SEEKING INFORMATION IN FORM A DT 27-11-2015.

¶27

P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT 14-12-2015 TO EXT P7 APPLICATION.

¶28

P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.17671/2015 DT 20-11-2015.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶35

W.P.(C)No.4795 of 2016

¶36

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2016

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Petitioner is the absolute owner of the property covered by document No.5767/2014 dated 19.11.2014 of the office of the Sub Registrar, Kondotty. Petitioner has submitted an application for mutation after the purchase of the property. However, 2^nd respondent has not passed any orders on the same, which constrains the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶39

Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, admitting that, the application for transfer of registry was received in the office of the 1^st respondent on 13.03.2015, however, the application was submitted without affixing the signature of both persons, ie, transferee and the purchaser. That apart, 1^st respondent directed the applicant to show the physical position of the land in respect of the application for transfer of registry

¶40

W.P.(C)No.4795 of 2016 2

¶41

was made on the basis of the purchase deed. It is also

¶42

stated that, the land in respect of transfer of registry

¶43

sought was the plot which was taken possession as surplus land by the Government under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and the land was assigned to several poor people of the backward community for cultivation, in order to bring them to the main stream. It is also stated, the land in question are rocky in nature, which was kept unassigned, as Government land. Other objections are raised with respect to the application submitted by the petitioner also.

¶44

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

¶45

As provided under Section 11 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, when there is a serious dispute in question, same will have to be adjudicated by the statutory authority namely, the Tahsildar of the competent jurisdiction. I find from the counter affidavit

¶46

W.P.(C)No.4795 of 2016 3

¶47

filed by the 2^nd respondent, there is a serious dispute existing. However, the same will have to be adjudicated and the issue should attain a finality or a logical conclusion. In that view of the matter, I think, it is only appropriate, a direction is issued to the 2^nd respondent to take on board the application submitted by the petitioner and consider the same in accordance with law within a time frame. 5. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶48

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶50

[ True copy]

¶51

P.A. to Judge

¶52

rmm/19/10/2016

Poonchola Lakshmi v. the Village Officer, Ndiyirippu Village

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonchola Lakshmi v. the Village Officer, Ndiyirippu Village

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

Lucipher Vs State of Kerala

Saju T.B. Vs State of Kerala

Girija K.S. Vs Thiruvalla Medical Mission Hospital

Aboobacker T.K Vs the Forest Range Officer

K.K.Kalyani Vs Executive Engineer, Vaikom

Prabhakaran Pillai V.V. Vs State of Kerala