Dismissed

Siyad P.H v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC5 Dec 2017WP(C)/8624/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition concerns a petitioner who obtained property shares via sale deed and inheritance but whose mutation application remained pending before the respondent Tahsildar. The court directed respondents to finalize proceedings within four months, permitting them to issue notices to shareholders and demarcate the property as per law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to finalize mutation proceedings with demarcation within four months

Siyad P.H Vs the Village Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 8624 of 2017 (C) ---------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SIYAD P.H, S/O.HANEEFA RAWTHER, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE VARIKODU BHAGAM PUNNAKUNNAM MURI KUTTAPUZHA.P.O. THIRUVALLA TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU

¶9

SRI.ROY THOMAS (PATHANAMTHITTA)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTAPUZHA VILLAGE KUTTAPUZHA.P.O THIRUVALLA TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 103

¶12

2. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 101

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT VINITHA.B

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.V.

¶16

WP(C).No. 8624 of 2017 (C)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 2253/2011 DATED 15.7.2011 OF THIRUVALLA SRO

¶20

P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 6.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶21

P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 3435/2014 DATED 17.11.2014 OF THIRUVALLA SRO

¶22

P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 8.2.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶23

P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 1.11.2012

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

¶25

/TRUE COPY/

¶26

K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE

¶27

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶28

W.P.(C) No.8624 of 2017

¶29

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2017

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Petitioner became the owner of 7/12^th share of the property by virtue of Ext.P3 sale deed dated 17.11.2014 bearing No.3435/2014 of SRO, Thiruvalla. Petitioner has also obtained 1/12^th share over the property as legal heir of the mother of the petitioner. After securing the shares, petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 application for carrying out mutation of the property in the name of the petitioner before the 1^st respondent, which is pending consideration. According to the petitioner, 1^st respondent has not taken any action to finalize the proceedings. It is thus seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

¶32

A statement is filed for and on behalf of the 2^nd respondent basically contending that, there is no demarcation of the property in order to identify the share alloted to the petitioner.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.8624 of 2017

¶34

¶35

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader, I think it is only appropriate that, a quietus is given to the writ petition by issuing appropriate directions.

¶36

There will be a direction to the competent among the respondents to finalize the proceedings pertaining to Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner. Respondents will be at liberty to issue notice to the respective shareholders and then demarcate the property in accordance with law and attain finality within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

smv 5.12.2017

Siyad P.H v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siyad P.H v. the Village Officer

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

George Mathew Vs Smt. Tinku Biswal I.A.S

Saji Mathew Vs Sri. V.V. Venu IAS

Smitha Jaison Vs Anita Karwal

Lal Kumar N.K. Vs Kerala Water Authority

Technoline Engineering Vs Smt. a.Shainamol IAS

Sathyanaranyanan Vs State of Kerala