Allowed

Casa Land Holdings (P) Ltd. v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thalassery

Kerala HC9 Aug 2017WP(C)/19413/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mutation rights despite respondent's refusal claiming pending proceedings against the vendor. Court held proceedings must have existed at the time of transfer, directed formal applications be filed, and ordered mutation grant within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to prefer formal mutation applications; directing competent authority to grant mutation within two weeks of receipt.

Casa Land Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs the Revenue Divisional… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/18TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 19413 of 2017 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

CASA LAND HOLDINGS (P) LTD., GFSR TOWERS, POST VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MOIDEEN AMEER, S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, POST THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 101.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR, IRITTY TALUK OFFICE, POST IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 703.

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYAMKUNNU VILLAGE OFFICE, POST AYYAMKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 703.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MANURAJ

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-08-2017, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 19856/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

WP(C).No. 19413 of 2017 (B)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2299/2016 OF SRO ULIYIL DATED 12-8-2016.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2298/2016 DATED 12-8-2016 OF SRO ULIYIL.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY AYYAMKUNNU VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 7-5-2016.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AYYAMKUNNU VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 10-5-2016.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AYYAMKUNNU VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 10-5-2016.

¶24

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NON-LIABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AYYAMKUNNU VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 01-06-2016.

¶25

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NON-LIABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AYYAMKUNNU VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 01-06-2016.

¶26

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE MUTATION OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT. P1 DOCUMENT DATED 12-8-2016.

¶27

EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE MUTATION OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT. P2 DOCUMENT DATED 12-8-2016.

¶28

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15-4-2017.

¶29

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF TALUK LAND BOARD, THALASSERY DATED 11/7/2017

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶35

==================

¶36

W.P.(C.) Nos. 19413 & 19856 of 2017

¶37

Dated this the 9^th day of August, 2017

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Requests made by the petitioners for effecting mutation in respect of the properties referred to in the writ petitions have been turned down by the respondents on the ground that proceedings have been initiated against the vendor of the petitioners under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. According to the petitioners, mutation sought by them cannot be denied on the aforesaid ground. They, therefore, seek appropriate directions in this regard, in these writ petitions.

¶40

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, confirmed that the requests made by the

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C.) No.19413 & 19856 of 2017

¶43

petitioners for effecting mutation have been turned down for the reason stated in the writ petitions. It is also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioners have not preferred formal applications for effecting mutation. The learned Government Pleader, however, conceded that there was no proceedings against the vendor of the petitioners under the Land Reforms Act at the time when the documents in favour of the petitioners have been executed and the proceedings have been initiated after the execution of the documents.

¶44

In so far as there was no proceedings against

¶45

the vendor of the petitioners under the Kerala Land Reforms Act at the time when the properties have been conveyed to the petitioners, according to me, there is no justification on the part of the respondents concerned in declining the requests made by the petitioners for effecting mutation.

¶46

In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the petitioners to prefer formal

¶47

W.P.(C.) No.19413 & 19856 of 2017 3

¶48

applications for effecting mutation in respect of the properties referred to in the writ petitions before the respondent concerned, and directing the competent authority among the respondents to grant the mutation sought by the petitioners, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the applications. It is, however, made clear that this judgment will not preclude the authorities under the Kerala Land Reforms Act in proceeding against the properties referred to in the writ petitions, if such proceedings are contemplated under law against the said properties.

¶49

sd/-

¶50

SKS

¶51

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

P.A. TO JUDGE

Casa Land Holdings (P) Ltd. v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thalassery

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Casa Land Holdings (P) Ltd. v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thalassery

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

Smt. Sujasree Vs District Collector

Anna Mathew Vs State of Kerala

P M Mohammed Ali Vs the Chief Electrical Inspector

DM Education and Research Foundation Vs Rajeev Sadanandan

Hansar M.K Vs Kerala Water Authority, Represented by the Managing Director

Raghavan Vs the Passport Officer