Disposed

Narayanan v. District Collector

Kerala HC15 Mar 2017WP(C)/2304/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment recognizes that petitioners hold ownership via a partition deed but lack registry mutation. The court directs the Tahsildar to process the applications under relevant rules after notifying interested parties within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent (Tahsildar) to consider the petitioners' applications for mutation of property under relevant rules and attain finality within three months.

Narayanan Vs District Collector — Partition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/24TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2304 of 2017 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. ARAYANAN, S/O.LATE RAMAN, CHIRANKARA ALACKAL, MAYANNUR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

2. MADHAVAN,S/O.LATE RAMAN, CHIRANKARA ALACKAL, MAYANNUR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

3. VELAYUDHAN,S/O.LATE RAMAN, CHIRANKARA ALACKAL, MAYANNUR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

4. KRISHNAN,S/O.LATE RAMAN, CHIRANKARA ALACKAL, MAYANNUR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

5. VIJAYAKUMARI,D/O.LATE RAMAN, CHIRANKARA ALACKAL, MAYANNUR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

6. RUGNINI,D/O.LATE RAMAN, CHIRANKARA ALACKAL, MAYANNUR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

7. KUNIJILAKSHMI,W/O.LATE SANKARAN, CHIRANKARA ALACKAL, MAYANNUR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

8. PANKAJAKSHI,W/O.LATE CHAMI, CHIRAKARA ALACKAL, MAYANNUR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶16

RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR 680 001.

¶18

WP(C).No. 2304 of 2017 (K)

¶19

2. THE TAHSILDAR THALAPPILLY TALUK, VADAKKANCHERRY, PIN: 680 582.

¶20

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER MAYANNUR, PIN: 679 105.

¶21

4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶22

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINITHA B.HARIRAJ

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No. 2304 of 2017 (K)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2842/2013, SRO PAZHAYANNUR
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 13/5/2014 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF 1ST PETITIONER, NARAYANAN FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, MAYANNUR.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 23/4/2015 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF 1ST PETITIONER, NARAYANAN FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, MAYYANNUR.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 30/1/2015 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, MAYANNUR.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 14/11/2014 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD PETITIONER FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, MAYANNUR.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 13/8/2015 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF 4TH PETITIONER FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, MAYANNUR.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20/4/2015 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF 6TH PETITIONER FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, MAYANNUR
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16/6/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICE, MAYANNUR UNDER RTI ACT
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27/7/2015 WITH RESPECT TO EXT.P8 APPLICATION ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, MAYANNUR UNDER RTI ACT

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.2304 of 2017

¶34

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2017

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

According to the petitioners, petitioners are in absolute ownership holding actual possession of properties allotted to them under partition deed No.2842/2013 of SRO Pazhayannur. Petitioners have filed applications seeking mutation of the property in accordance with the partition effected and accept land tax from them. However, the same is not considered by the statutory authority for reasons best known to the statutory authority. It is thus seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

¶37

Second respondent has filed a statement and among other contentions it is stated that, when an application in connection with relationship certificate of late Sankaran was submitted, Village Officer made a local enquiry and found that Late Sankaran had two daughters, who were given in marriage and went to Kayiliyad in Palakkad District. The Tahsildar vide letter dated 18.9.2014 issued a direction to the Village Officer to take steps to transfer the registry by succession and also directed

¶38

W.P.(C) No.2304 of 2017

¶39

¶40

to collect basic tax including in the name of legal heirs. Hence the Village Officer issued basic tax receipt, including the two daughters of Sankaran, omitted in the partition deed. It is also stated that, two daughters of late Sankaran had right in the landed properties of her father Sankaran and late Chami unmarried brother of Sankaran. Petitioners have not produced any documents to show that the Raman's sisters have no right over the property of late Sankaran and Chami. It is therefore submitted that the non- effecting of transfer of registry separately on the basis of Ext.P1 partition deed is in accordance with law. .

¶41

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and perusing the documents on record and pleadings I think a quietus can be given to the writ petition by issuing appropriate direction to the second respondent to take on board the applications submitted by the petitioners and consider them in accordance with the provisions of Transfer of registry Rules, 1966 and attain finality to the same.

¶42

Therefore, there will be a direction accordingly to the second respondent, to attain finality to the applications submitted by the petitioners within three months after providing sufficient

¶43

W.P.(C) No.2304 of 2017

¶44

¶45

notice of hearing to the petitioners as well as all other interested and affected persons, in accordance with law.

¶46

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶49

dlk/15/3/

Narayanan v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanan v. District Collector

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

K.G. Narayana Pai Vs Veena S. Madhavan

Midhun Rajendran, Rep. by P/a Holder Kuppathanathu Markose John Vs Union of India

Biju Sebastian a. Vs Union of India

Dineshan Vs South Indian Bank

C.K.Ajayakumar Vs the State of Kerala

Mary John Vs Village Officer