Remanded

Official Receiver v. Special Tahsildar

Kerala HC2 Feb 2016WP(C)/5134/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside the District Collector's order cancelling a pattayam. The order was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the parties due to lack of proper hearing and non-adherence to objections raised by the Official Receiver.

What did the court decide?

Order of District Collector dated 27.11.2004 set aside. Matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing parties.

Official Receiver Vs Special Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/13TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 5134 of 2005 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------------

¶8

OFFICIAL RECEIVER, DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.) SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

-------------------------

¶12

1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, SREEPANDARAVAKA LANDS, NO.III, CHENTHITTA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3. T.VELAYUDHAN ACHARI, CHEKKALAVILAKATHU VEEDU, KARAMANA ANDIYIRAKONAM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

4. T.RAJAGOPALAN ACHARI, -DO- -DO-.

¶16

5. AMUDINI, T.C. 38/218, CHENTHITTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

ADDITIONAL R6 IMPLEADED

¶18

6. BIJU RAMESH, S/O.G.RAMESAN, “SUMTHRUPTHI”, FORT P.O., VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.

¶19

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER 1.7.2005 IN IA.7551/2005.

¶20

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ KUNJACHAN R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-02-2016, ALONG WITH WPC. 16739/2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

msv/

¶23

WP(C).No. 5134 of 2005 (J)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶26

--------------------------------------

¶27

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3022/85 DTD.20.11.85.

¶28

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF PATTA NO.125/03 DTD.4.9.03.

¶29

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DTD.9.10.2003.

¶30

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY 3RD & 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.G6-67698/03 DTD.NIL.

¶31

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.D.DIS.67698/2003/06 DTD.27.2.2004 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.7807/04 DTD.5.3.2004 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶33

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.A4.198/2004 DTD.28.5.2004 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.D.DIS 36931/04/06 DTD.27.11.2004 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA.14/05 IN OP (IP) 2/89 DTD.20.1.2005 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRAUM.

¶36

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C).Nos.5134/2005 & 16739/2005

¶44

¶45

Dated this the 2^nd Day of February, 2016

¶46

J U D G M E N T

¶47

The issues in these writ petitions are relating to the land

¶48

comprised in Survey Nos.2350/36 and 2350/39-2 of Thycaudu Village,

¶49

Thiruvananthapuram District.

¶50

W.P.(C).No.16739/2005 is filed by the purchaser of the

¶51

aforesaid land from the Official Receiver attached to the District

¶52

Court, Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext.P1. He has approached this

¶53

Court challenging a communication issued to him by the Village

¶54

Officer stating that mutation cannot be effected for the reason that

¶55

the pattayam issued by the Sree Pandaravaka Land Tahsildar has

¶56

been cancelled. Ext.P2 is the said communication.

¶57

W.P.(C). Nos.5134/20015 & 16739/2005 -:2:-

¶58

W.P.(C).No.5134/2005 is filed by the Official Receiver

¶59

appointed by the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram in an insolvency

¶60

proceedings involving T.Velayudhan Achari and T.Rajagopalan Achari,

¶61

who are the party respondents in both these writ petitions, seeking

¶62

for a direction to restrain the Special Tahsildar and the District Collector from assigning 8.280 cents of land comprised in Survey Nos.2350/36-2 and 2350/34-2 of Chengazhassery Village (Thycaudu

¶63

Village).

¶64

It appears from the pleadings that there is no dispute as

¶65

to the land situated in survey No.2350/39-2 of Thycaudu Village in Thiruvananthapuram District. However, there is a serious dispute in

¶66

respect of the land comprised in suvey Nos.2350/36-2. It is seen that

¶67

one V.Amudini filed an appeal before the District Collector under the

¶68

W.P.(C). Nos.5134/20015 & 16739/2005 -:3:-

¶69

provisions of the Sree Pandaravaka Lands (Vesting and

¶70

Enfranchisement) Act, 1971 challenging the pattayam issued by the

¶71

Special Tahsildar in favour of T.Velayudhan Achari and T.Rajagopalan

¶72

Achari. The appeal was allowed by the District Collector. It appears

¶73

that based on the above decision, the Village Officer communicated

¶74

the writ petitioner in W.P.(C).No.16739/2015 that transfer of registry

¶75

cannot be effected.

¶76

The Official Receiver put the properties into auction

¶77

based on the order passed by the District Court. The auction was

¶78

confirmed in favour of the writ petitioner in W.P.(C).No.16739/2005.

¶79

The title of the writ petitioner in W.P.(C).No.16739/2005 would depend upon the validity of the pattayam issued in favour of

¶80

T.Velayudhan Achari and T.Rajagopalan Achari. In that view of the

¶81

W.P.(C). Nos.5134/20015 & 16739/2005 -:4:-

¶82

matter, the remedy of the writ petitioner in W.P.(C).No.16739/2005 is

¶83

to challenge the order of the District Collector cancelling pattayam.

¶84

The Official Receiver in W.P.(C).No.5134/2005 had challenged the order of the District Collector cancelling the pattayam. It appears that the District Collector by order dated 27/11/2004 cancelled the pattayam. Ext.P8 produced in W.P.(C).No.5134/2005 is the order

¶85

dated 27/11/2004 issued by the District Collector. Even though, the sale was confirmed in favour of the writ petitioner in W.P.(C). No.16739/2005 before Ext.P8 order was issued, he was not heard by the District Collector while passing Ext.P8 order.

¶86

Further, the objection raised by the Official Receiver was

¶87

also not adverted to by the District Collector. Therefore, the order of

¶88

the District Collector dated 27/11/2004 is set aside. The matter is

¶89

W.P.(C). Nos.5134/20015 & 16739/2005 -:5:-

¶90

remitted back to the District Collector for fresh consideration after

¶91

hearing the petitioners and the party respondents. The decision shall

¶92

be taken by the District Collector within four months from the date of

¶93

receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is open for the District Collector

¶94

to receive basic tax from the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.16739/2015 in

¶95

respect of the land covered by survey No. 2350/39-2 of Thycaudu

¶96

Village.

¶97

The writ petitions are disposed of as above. No costs.

¶98

Sd/-

¶99

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶100

Official Receiver v. Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Official Receiver v. Special Tahsildar

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

Sini v. Vs M.Nandakumar, IAS

Rajam Vs State of Kerala

Vellakutty Vs the State of Kerala

Sisupalan Vs Harshad

M.v.Viswanathan Vs Kerala Water Authority

M.K.Rajendran Vs Director,Kirtads