Disposed

Thomas Kuruvila v. Village Officer,Kakkanadu

Kerala HC1 Mar 2017WP(C)/29756/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that factual disputes regarding ownership and objections arising in the mutation process are not suitable for determination in a writ petition. The execution of the sale certificate is deemed to cause intolerable hardship if delayed. Thus, the Court directed the Village Officer to immediately examine objections and decide the mutation application within four months. The Court declin

What did the court decide?

Directed the Village Officer to submit an order on the petitioner's mutation application after hearing concerned parties within four months from the date of receipt of this judgment.

Thomas Kuruvila Vs Village Officer,Kakkanadu — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/10TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 29756 of 2009 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THOMAS KURUVILA, 29/1014, LINE-12, JANATHA ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-19.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JAYARAJ NAMBIAR.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. VILLAGE OFFICER, KAKKANADU.

¶11

2. TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

3. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, VYTTILA BRANCH.

¶13

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR. R3 BY SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA, SC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 29756 of 2009 (L)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN THE AUCTION DATED 18/07/2006.

¶21

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE DELIVER RECEIPT IN EP.507/2001 DATED 27/02/2008.

¶22

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE DELIVERY WARRANT WITH REPORT IN EP.507/2001 DATED 27/02/2008.

¶23

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 10/12/2008.

¶24

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/12/2003 IN EA.1440/2003 IN EP.507/2001 IN OS.539/1989 PASSED BY SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶26

EXT.R2A COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/01/2010 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT TO THE SBT, VYTTILA BRANCH.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(C) No.29756 of 2009

¶33

========================== Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2017

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner asserts that he has purchased certain extent of land covered by Ext.P1 sale certificate through a court auction. He says that when he applied for mutation in his name, the competent Authorities have refused to do so citing objections from other persons. Unfortunately, the pleadings and materials on record do not disclose what exactly is the nature of the alleged objection and who are the alleged objectors. The petitioner only says that he has been denied mutation by the competent Authorities and he has approached this Court seeking that the respondents be directed to effect mutation of the property covered by Ext.P1 sales certificate in their name.

¶36

I have heard Sri.K.K.Jayaraj Nambiar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the third respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

¶37

I see that a counter affidavit has been placed on record on behalf of the second respondent. He has taken a stand that he has not been able to process the application for mutation

¶38

W.P.(C) No.29756 of 2009

¶39

¶40

made by the petitioner because according to him, the property is now in the possession of persons by names K.R.Thampy and Naseema Koya. He says that they have made objections contending that they are the present owners of the property and that they have obtained ownership over the same through valid assignments issued by the competent Authority under the provisions of the Land Assignment Act and Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner refutes this contending that his client had purchased the property under a court auction and that it was sold by the court in order to recover certain amounts of money awarded under a decree in a suit instituted by the third respondent – Bank. He, therefore, vehemently contends that there could be no further interest created in the property specially because the suit had been pending all along from the year 1989 and that any such claim made by any other person is completely without basis and untenable.

¶41

The learned standing counsel for the bank supports the petitioner by saying that one of the persons named in the counter affidavit namely Mr.Thampy had, in fact, filed a claim petition before the court below and the same had been

¶42

W.P.(C) No.29756 of 2009

¶43

¶44

dismissed. He, therefore, says that the assertions in the counter affidavit on behalf of the second respondent are not based on cogent reasons or credible information. I see that these are essentially questions of facts which I do not want to consider or delve into in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I deem it appropriate that the competent Authority who is approached by the petitioner for mutation of the property consider this and issue an appropriate order after arriving at a considered decision on these issues.

¶45

In such circumstances, I direct the first respondent – Village Officer, Kakkanad to take up the application of the petitioner seeking mutation of the property in his name immediately and consider the same after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the representative of the third respondent – Bank as also any person who has made formal objections before it against such mutation.

¶46

Since this writ petition has been pending here for the past more than eight years, I deem it appropriate that the first respondent complete this exercise within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment adverting

¶47

W.P.(C) No.29756 of 2009

¶48

¶49

specifically to the fact that the petitioner is claiming mutation over the property which was sold to him by a competent civil Court.

¶50

The writ petition is ordered as above. In the nature of the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶51

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶52

stu

Thomas Kuruvila v. Village Officer,Kakkanadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Kuruvila v. Village Officer,Kakkanadu

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

Ajmal Safeer Vs State of Kerala

S.Christopher Vs University of Kerala

P a Ali Vs Union of India

Moozhikkal Aboobacker Vs the District Registrar (General)

K.J. Mathukutty Vs Government of Kerala

S.Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala