Disposed

K.C.Anilkumar v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC3 Jul 2017WP(C)/9442/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed grievance regarding inaction by authorities in effecting mutation for petitioners' properties. Directing authorities to effect mutation if applications are in order, subject to Revenue Department verification regarding bogus title documents in the area, within six weeks of judgment receipt.

What did the court decide?

Directed authorities to effect mutation within six weeks of receipt, subject to verification process outcome.

K.C.Anilkumar Vs the Village Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2017/12TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 9442 of 2017 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.C. ANIL KUMAR,

¶8

S/O. CHITHRANGADAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, CHITHIRAPURAM P.O, ANACHAL KARA, KUNJITHANNI VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, DISTRICT IDUKKI.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM, SRI.M.MUKESH.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHINNAKKANAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, NEDUMKANDOM P.O, DISTRICT IDUKKI-685 553.

¶12

2. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, NEDUMKANDOM P.O, DISTRICT IDUKKI-685 553.

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685 603.

¶14

BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2017, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO .9525 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 9442 of 2017 (E)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

P1 : A PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO.737/2007 DATED 10-07-2004.

¶21

P2 : A PHOTOCOPY OF PATTA NO. LA 96/69 DATED 20-05-1976.

¶22

P3 : A PHOTOCOPY OF LA 94/69 (T 548) DATED 20-05-1976.

¶23

P4 : A PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.258/2014 DATED NIL.

¶24

P5 : A PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 20-01-2017.

¶25

P6 : A PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16-07-2014.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) Nos.9442, 9525, 9526 & 9527 of 2017

¶32

Dated this the 3^rd day of July, 2017

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The grievance of the petitioners in these writ

¶35

petitions concerns the inaction on the part of the authorities under the Transfer of Registry Rules in effecting mutation in respect of the properties obtained by the petitioners by virtue of the title deeds referred to in the writ petitions.

¶36

The learned Government Pleader, on

¶37

instructions, submits that a verification of the title deeds of the properties in respect of Chinnakanal area is being

¶38

W.P.(C) No.9442 of 2017 & Con. cases. -2-

¶39

undertaken by the Revenue Department and it is on account of the said verification process that the applications preferred by the petitioners for effecting mutation have not been considered. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the said verification process has been undertaken by the Revenue Department since it was found that large number of title documents in respect of the properties in the area are bogus.

¶40

It is seen that similar matters have been disposed of by this Court directing the authorities under the Transfer of Registry Rules to effect mutation subject to then outcome of the verification process undertaken by the Revenue Department.

¶41

In the circumstances, these writ petitions are also disposed of directing the authorities under the Transfer of Registry Rules to effect mutation in respect of the properties sought by the petitioners based on the title

¶42

W.P.(C) No.9442 of 2017 & Con. cases. -3-

¶43

deeds obtained by them, if the applications preferred by the petitioners are otherwise in order, subject to the outcome of the verification process undertaken by the Revenue Department. This shall be done within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶46

bpr

K.C.Anilkumar v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C.Anilkumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Rafi Syed Vs T.S.Jayasree

Sethu Anna Varghese Vs Additional Tahsildar

M/S Hilite Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sujith P.V.

M/S.Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt.Ltd Vs Kerala Water Authority

Justin Shinto Vs the District Police Chief, Ernakulam

Raju.D Vs Union of India