Disposed

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jan 2016WP(C)/607/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the denial of registration for a settlement deed where the claimed land extent exceeded his established title. The High Court held the Sub Registrar justified in questioning the discrepancy and directed the petitioner to produce title documents to prove ownership over the full extent before registration could proceed. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to explain before the Sub Registrar with necessary documents evidencing title over the full extent claimed before the settlement deed could be registered.

Shaji Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/17TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 607 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHAJI,

¶8

S/O. JOSE, EZHUPULLI HOUSE, HOUSE NO. 9/386, KUMARANELLOOR P.O., PIN-680590.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, WADAKKANCHERRY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680582.

¶13

3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THALAPPILLY, WADAKKANCHERRY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680582.

¶14

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMARANELLUR VILLAGE OFFICE, KUMARANELLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680590.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.K.SHERIN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 607 of 2016 (A)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO. 1129/2013 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERRY, DATED 18-02-2013.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE RE-SURVEY PROCEEDINGS DRAWN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 18-06-2014.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF BASIC TAX REGISTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13-08-2015.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P4 ORDER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DAETD 23-11-2015.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DATED 13-03-2015.

¶27

EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 26-06-2015.

¶28

EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEITP ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DATED 26-06-2015.

¶29

EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERRY, DATED 17-11-2015.

¶30

EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF THE OREDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23-11-2015.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C).No.607/2016

¶39

¶40

Dated this the 7^th Day of January, 2016

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

The petitioner, aggrieved by the denial of registration of Ext.P9

¶43

settlement deed, has approached this Court. In the settlement deed,

¶44

the extent of the land to which the petitioner claimed title is shown

¶45

as 17.62 Ares. The Sub Registrar noted that the petitioner orignally

¶46

was having right only in respect of 15.78 Ares, out of which the petitioner has assigned 12.95 Ares land therefore, what is remaining

¶47

is only 2.83 Ares.

¶48

This Court is of the view that the Sub Registrar is justified

¶49

in pointing out the competency of the petitioner to present the

¶50

instrument showing the extent as 17.62 ares. No doubt, if the

¶51

W.P.(C).No.607/2016

¶52

-:2:-

¶53

petitioner is able to explain with necessary documents that he has right or interest over the entire 17.62 Ares, the Sub Registrar shall register the documents. Therefore, the petitioner shall explain before

¶54

the Sub Registrar, with necessary documents and materials evidencing that he is having title over the 17.62 Ares of land, and based on any such satisfaction, the Registrar shall register the

¶55

settlement deed.

¶56

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶57

Sd/A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶58

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji v. State of Kerala

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

Thulaseedharan Vs the Geologist

Radha Vs Balakiran I.A.S.

Joby K.P. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Moideenkutty @ Kunhavu Haji Vs the District Registrar (Audit)

K.a.Sebastian Vs Local Level Monitoring Committee, Kakkanad

Jayasree Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner