Allowed

Ramakrishnan v. the District Collector, Palakkad

Kerala HC16 Jun 2017WP(C)/9717/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition where the petitioner sought mutation for property obtained via partition deed. The authorities refused mutation citing pending revenue recovery proceedings. The court held these proceedings did not impede mutation as the petitioner had no liability to the bank concerned.

What did the court decide?

The competent authority among the respondents is directed to effect mutation in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 partition deed, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled.

Ramakrishnan Vs the District Collector, Palakkad — 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

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/26TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 9717 of 2017 (L)

PETITIONER :

----------

RAMAKRISHNAN

S/O. LATE KESAVAN, VADAKKUMURY HOUSE, THRIKANGODE AMSOM, CHOROTTUR DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

-----------

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001.

¶14

2. THE TAHSILDAR OTTAPALAM, PIN-679 101.

¶15

3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/DEPUTY TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY,OTTAPALAM, PIN-679 101.

¶16

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER VANIYAMKULAM-II VILLAGE, P.O. VANIYAMKULAM, PIN-679 522.

¶17

5. STATE BANK OF INDIA VANIYAMKULAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, P.O. VANIYAMKULAM, PIN-679 522.

¶18

WP(C).No. 9717 of 2017 (L)

¶19

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

¶20

R1 TO R4 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA),SC, SBI

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No. 9717 of 2017 (L)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE NO 406/2017, SRO	PARTITION DEED OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 6.2.2015 IS FROM VANIYAMKULAM	BUILDING TAX RECEIPT SUED TO THE PETITIONER GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE 7.5.2012 ISSUED I PETITIONER'S MOTH OFFICE, VANIYAMKU	TAX RECEIPT DATED N THE NAME OF THE ER KALI FROM VILLAGE LAM-II VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE 11.1.2016 ISSUED PETITONER'S MOTHE VILLAGE OFFICE, V	TAX RECEIPT DATED IN THE NAME OF THE R KALI AND OTHERS FROM ANIYAMKULAM-II VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE LOK	AWARD DATED 12.12.2015 ADALATH, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 11.11.2015 TAHSILDAR, REVENU	REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY E RECOVERY, OTTAPALAM.
RESPONDENT(S)'	EXHIBITS :

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶31

--------------------------------------------

¶32

W.P.(C).No.9717 of 2017

¶33

---------------------------------------------------------------

¶34

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2017

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The petitioner obtained an item of property by virtue of Ext.P1 partition deed. When he applied for mutation in respect of the property, the authorities under the Transfer of Registry Rules declined the request on the ground that revenue recovery proceedings are pending in respect of the property. According to the petitioner, he has no liability, whatsoever, and there is no proceeding against him under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is stated that his son has some liability to the State Bank of India and the property covered by Ext.P1 partition deed has nothing to do with the said liability of the son of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions to the authorities under the Transfer of Registry Rules to effect the mutation sought by the petitioner.

¶37

W.P.(c).No.9717 of 2017

¶38

: 2 :

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State Bank of India.

¶40

The learned Standing Counsel for the State Bank of India submits, on instructions, that this property is not a property mortgaged and the petitioner has no liability to the said Bank.

¶41

In the light of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the State Bank of India, there cannot be any impediment at all in effecting the mutation in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 partition deed.

¶42

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the competent authority among the respondents is directed to effect mutation in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 partition deed, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled for the same.

¶43

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶44

rsr

Ramakrishnan v. the District Collector, Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnan v. the District Collector, Palakkad

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

Devaki Vs Sri. Sasikumar, Forest Officer

Thoppil Contrators (India)Private Limited Vs the State of Kerala

S.P. Thonthi Peerannan Vs the District Collector

Sajeev Mathew Vs Super Intending Engineer

N.Ramakrishna Das Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vs Passport Officer