Petitioner sought inclusion of excess land in revenue records under Rule 28. Court held that since properties remained in joint ownership of family heirs, Rule 28 inapplicable. No tenancy existed, so referring Land Tribunal improper. Petitioner must first take civil remedies.
Writ petition closed. No order as to costs. Petitioner directed to pursue civil remedies.
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.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/24TH KARTHIKA, 1939
WP(C).No. 25145 of 2017 (P)
PETITIONER(S):
BHAVANI, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, KORECHAL DESOM, CHEMBUCHIRA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. TAHSILDAR, CHALAKUDY TALUK, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680307.
2. VILLAGE OFFICER,
MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MATTATHUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680684.
R1,R2 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R DEEPA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sdr/-
WP(C).No. 25145 of 2017 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT GIFT DEED DATED 27.01.2006. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2800 OF 1997 DATED 04.08.1997. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.3101/1985 DATED 13.12.1985. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FAMILY PARTITION DEED NO.2870/1985. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER AND COMING WITHIN THE FOUR BOUNDARIES OF EXT. P1 DOCUMENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 02.05.2016. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT RULES OF TRANSFER OF REGISTRY RULES. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE IN KERALA VILLAGE MANUAL. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 02.07.2011. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR DATED 19.03.2013. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 06.02.2017 OF THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
sdr/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------
W.P(C). No.25145 of 2017 [P] ---------------------------------Dated this the 15th day of November, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with the
Tahsildar having not acted under Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 [for brevity, the Rules] in an application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed the
application since the petitioner and her children were in ownership of 8.836 Ares of land as per Ext.P1 title deed. The land on measurement was found to be 11.92 Ares. The petitioner hence applied under Rule 28 of the Rules seeking an enquiry and inclusion of the excess property as covered by the title of the
W.P(C). No.25145 of 2017 [P]
2
petitioner and for carrying out mutation in the revenue records of the excess property found in their possession.
W.P(C). No.25145 of 2017 [P]
3
under Rule 28 of the Rules was filed before the 1st respondent.
Officer to request the petitioner to approach the Land Tribunal for Pattayam by Ext.P11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there could be no Pattayam applied for and the Tahsildar ought to have taken proceedings under Rule 28, conduct an enquiry and include the excess land in the possession of the petitioner.
W.P(C). No.25145 of 2017 [P]
4
family. Hence there could be no contention of adverse possession taken against the co-owners. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek a direction to the Tahsildar to proceed under Rule 28. This Court has to concede to the argument put forth by the State. However, the direction at Ext.P4 to approach the Land Tribunal would also be not proper since there is no tenancy on the petitioner or her predecessor-in-interest. The petitioner has first to take up civil remedies available to the petitioner.
With the above observation, the writ petition would stand closed. No Costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge
sp/16/11/17
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tahsildar can proceed under Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules to include excess land in the petitioner's possession or if civil remedies regarding title must be taken first.
Whether the direction to approach the Land Tribunal for Pattayam was proper given the absence of tenancy in the petitioner or her predecessor.
Whether the petitioner is required to exhaust civil remedies available to her before seeking relief under this writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhavani
Tahsildar, Chalakudy Taluk
Village Officer, Mattathur Village
K.Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
