Writ petition challenging mutation of property was dismissed. Court held dispute requires evidence adduction in civil court. No interference warranted under Article 226 at this stage.
The writ petition was dismissed for default as per the order dated 3.2.2016.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/3RD PHALGUNA, 1937
WP(C).No. 6825 of 2015 (C)
PETITIONER(S):
MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.VASUDEVA PANICKER, SASTHAMKUTTY VEEDU, RASALPURAM P.O., MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK,
BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR V.SANAL KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESNETED BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR(RR),KATTAKKADA TALUK OFFICE,KATTAKKADA,TRIVANDRUM 695 001.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK,TRIVANDRUM 695 014
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,MARANALLOOR VILLAGE,KATTAKKADA TALUK,TRIVANDRUM 695 014
6. HEBSIBAI @ LILLY, W/O.SELVARAJ, KACHANI CHARIVUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAKULAM VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM 595 014
7. LOPEZ,S/O.ENOS, AGED 60 YEARS KARYKAD, THUNDUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MANJOORKONAM, ARUMANA P.O, PIN 695 016
8. KAMALAM, APPROX.AGED 60 YEARS D/O.ANNAMMA, PLANKALA PODUVAL VEEDU, NALLOORVATTOM, KULATHUR 695 032
...2
WP(C).No. 6825 of 2015 (C) 2
9. BABY,D/O. ANNPAI, AGED 60 YEARS KODAVILAKATHU, NADOORKOLLA KOLLAYIL VILLAGE, 695 007
10. MANI @ RAJAN, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.APPILOS, A.R BHAVAN, KULATHUMMAL KOLLAYIL VILLAGE, PIN 695 007
11. RAJU, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.APPILOS, TAS BHAVAN, MARUTHATHOOR NEYYATTINKARA 695 121
12. SANTHA @ SANTHI, AGED 50 YEARS D/O.ANPAI, RESIDING AT KUTTAKONATH, VILAVANCODE TALUK TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT PIN 695 006
13. SASI @ SASIDHARAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O.APPILOS, SR BHAVAN, MARUTHATHOOR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA 695 121
14. RAJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D/O.JOY, ANARAYATHALACKAL VEEDU, PUNALAL VELLANADU 695 010
15. SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.NADARAJA PANICKER, MANNAMVILA SURESH BHAVAN MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA-695121
R6-R12,R14 BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI R1-5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.RAFEEK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
THIS WRIT PETITION WILL STAND DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 3.2.2016.
SD/- K.HARILAL, JUDGE
22.2.2016
OKB
// True copy //
P.A. to Judge
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
W.P.(C). NO. 6825 OF 2015
Dated this the 04th day of October, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the absolute owner of 10 cents of property comprised in Re-Survey No. 327/5, secured by the petitioner as per Sale Deed No. 469 of 1986. The predecessors in interest of property has got right over the property, as per partition deed executed pursuant to the final decree passed in O.S. No. 856/1967 and subsequent gift deed. Thereafter, re-survey was conducted but no mutation was effected as per new survey. Prior to that the party respondents tried to trespass into the property of the petitioner by demolishing the boundary walls, which could be prevented by the petitioner by filing O.S. No. 434/2014 before the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. According to the
W.P.(C). NO. 6825 OF 2015 2
petitioner, a commission deputed by the said Court has reported that actual physical possession of the property is with the petitioner. In the meanwhile, respondents 5 to 13 approached this Court, and secured a direction, directing respondents 3 and 4 to effect mutation in their name, which according to the petitioner was secured by misrepresenting facts, with the support of the revenue authorities.
W.P.(C). NO. 6825 OF 2015 3
appearing for the party respondents, and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner.
W.P.(C). NO. 6825 OF 2015 4
If the petitioner is advised, petitioner will be at liberty to invoke the appeal provisions, under the Transfer of Registry Rules also.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
DCS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere under Article 226 in a dispute over property mutation where factual evidence is required.
Whether the petitioner has made out grounds for discretionary judicial interference in a mutation dispute.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Muraliedharan
State of Kerala
District Collector
Additional Tahsildar
Village Officer
Shaji P. Chaly
K. Harilal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
