Partly allowed

Jameela v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC6 Jun 2016WP(C)/5800/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned a request to transfer property registry due to the unaccounted absence of a registered holder. The court directed the tahsildar to consider the application after affording a hearing opportunity while clarifying that the burden of proof regarding the disappearance conditions rested on the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent (Tahsildar) to consider the petitioners' application after a hearing within six weeks.

Jameela Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/16TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5800 of 2015 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. JAMEELA, W/O.ABDU, KUTTIKKATTU HOUSE, AGED 56 YEARS, KARA KATHIYALAM DESOM, EDAVILANGU VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

2. SHAKKIYA, D/O.ABDU, AGED 34 YEARS KUTTIKKATTU HOUSE, KARA KATHIYALAM DESOM, EDAVILANGU VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

3. SHAMILA, D/O.ABDU, AGED 32 YEARS, KUTTIKKATTU HOUSE, KARA KATHIYALAM DESOM, EDAVILANGU VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK,

¶10

THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR)

¶12

SRI.T.V.SHAJI

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 682001.

¶15

2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 682024.

¶16

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAVILANGU VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISUR DISTRICT - 682024.

¶17

4. BADARUDHEEN, S/O.ABDU, KUTTIKKATTU HOUSE, KARA KATHIYALAM DESOM, EDAVILANGU VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 682024.

¶18

R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.RAMESAN

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 5800 of 2015 (Y)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

P1TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BY THE SI OF POLICE, KODUNGALLUR ABOUT THE MISSING OF PETITIONER 1'S HUSBAND

¶25

P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE TO RESPONDENT 1 TO 3

¶26

P3TRUE OCPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS OF THE EXBT P2 SENT TO THE RESPONDENT 1 TO 3

¶27

P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SENT BY THE RESPONDENT 2

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶34

W.P.(C).No. 5800 of 2015

¶35

Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioners and the fourth respondent are the successors of one Abdu. Abdu was holding an item of property. According to the petitioners, the whereabouts of Abdu is not known to anyone for the last seven years and that therefore, the revenue records in respect of the property held by Abdu are to be transferred to their name. Ext.P2 is the application filed by the petitioners and the fourth respondent before the second respondent in this connection. The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, when this matter was taken up for admission, is for a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 in the light of Rule 27(ii) of the Transfer of Registry Rules 1966.

¶38

W.P.(C).No. 5800 of 2015

¶39

-2-

¶40

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have not established that the whereabouts of Abdu is not known to anyone for the last seven years as claimed by the petitioners and it is on account of the said reason that Ext.P2 application is not being considered. Rule 27(ii) of the Transfer of Registry Rules reads thus:

¶41

“Succession in case of disappearance of registered holder.— In case of disappearance for more than 7 years of the registered holder of a holding and in the absence of any evidence to show that he is still alive, he should be considered as dead and registry transferred in the name of his legal heirs accordingly. In all cases in which there are no legal heirs who claim the registry, it may be made in the name of the person is possession of the lands after giving notice in the District Gazatte if published in the District or in the Government Gazette to the effect that the registry will be made in his name unless a declaration is filed within three months from the date of the notice by any person objecting to the registry stating that he has instituted a suit in a Civil Court to establish

¶42

-3-

¶43

W.P.(C).No. 5800 of 2015

¶44

his right and an authenticated copy of the plaint in the suit is produced. If no declaration is filed, the registry shall be made as stated in the notice at the expiration of three months. If a declaration is filed the result of the suit should be awaited before taking further action.”

¶45

Having regard to the said provision contained in Rule 27(ii) of the Transfer of Registry Rules, I deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 application after affording the petitioners an opportunity for hearing. Ordered accordingly. It is for the petitioners to establish the conditions stipulated in the said Rule. An order on Ext.P2 shall be passed by the second respondent, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶46

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶47

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

bpr

Jameela v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jameela v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Arjun.R Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Mary Matha Construction Company Vs State of Kerala

Kodiyathu Kizhakke Veettil Lakshmi Amma Vs the District Collector

V.Radhakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala

Nri'S Relief & Welfare Co-Op Society Ltd. Vs Director of Ports

Seby Paul Vs the Deputy Collector