Disposed

Syamala v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jun 2018WP(C)/10873/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the second respondent to consider the application for mutation of a partitioned property and attain finality within three months. Further, the patta seized by the vigilance was to be released if no legal implications barred it, upon filing a copy of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the mutation application within three months and release the seized patta subject to legal implications.

Syamala Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 10873 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1 SYAMALA, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.SUKUMARAN, KOODARATHIL HOUSE, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM PO, IDUKKI 685613.

¶8

2 SOBHANA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.KUTTPPAN, AKKATTU HOUSE, MACHIPLAVU PO, IDUKKI 685561.

¶9

3 GIRIJA, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.VIJYAAN, KORATIYIL HOUSE, KANTHALLOOR VILLAGE, KANTHALLOORE 686520

¶10

4 VANAJA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.DIVAKARAN, THAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANNAVIRATTI VILLAGE, AANAVIRATTI PO, IDUKKI 685613

¶11

5 VIJAYAMMA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.SOMANATHAN, GOKUL NIVAS, THAZHATHANGADY PO, KOTTAYAM 686005

¶12

6 VIJAYASREE, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.NANDAKUMAR, THAZHATHEDATH HOUSE, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV.SRI.BABY MATHEW

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM 695001

¶16

2. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, DEVIKULAM PO, IDUKKI 685613

¶17

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM PO, IDUKKI 685613

¶18

R1 TO R3 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED ANZAR K J

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 10873 of 2018 (H)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE	COPY OF PATTA NO. 162 DATED 26.03.1999
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PETIT	COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE IONERS FATHER
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE	COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED 13.12.2004
EXHIBIT P 4	TRUE PATTA 07.01	COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE LIST OF YAMS AND ITS COVERING LETTER DATED .2014
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE SUBMI THE M DATED	COPY OF THE ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIONS TTED BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM BY OTHER OF THE PETITIONERS MADHAVIAMMA 06.10.2016
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE DEPUT TAHSI	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE Y TAHSILDAR, KDH VILLAGE, TO THE LDAR, DEVIKULAM DATED 13.12.2016
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE ON TH 11.12	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO. 31311/2015 E FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED .2016
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE	COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 09.08.2016
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE THE REPRE NIL	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS AND OTHER LEGAL SENTATIVES OF DECEASED SREEDHARAN DATED
RESPONDENTS	EXHIBITS:	NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk/11/6/18

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

W.P.(C) No. 10873 of 2018

¶29

Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2018

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

As per Ext.P3 deed of partition petitioner became vested with 6.52 Ares of property situate in Survey No.20/1 of KDH Village, Idukki District. According to the petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court earlier and has secured Ext.P5 judgment in WP(C)No.31311/2015 dated 11.2.2016, whereby, certain directions were issued with respect to acceptance of basic tax against the property, however, the grievance highlighted by the petitioner in this writ petition is that, even though, Ext.P9 application is submitted in order to effect mutation of the property as per the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 no action is initiated.

¶32

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P9, in accordance with law, and attain finality, at the earliest possible time, and at any rate,

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 10873 of 2018

¶34

¶35

within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing participation to the petitioner and any other interested persons.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, on account of vigilance enquiry, Ext.P1 Patta was seized by the vigilance, which is also available, now, with the revenue authority. If there are no other legal implications against the release of Ext.P1 Patta, the same shall also be released to the petitioner, in accordance with law. Petitioner shall also produce a copy of this writ petition along with appended documents before the second respondent.

¶37

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶40

dlk/11/6/18

Syamala v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syamala v. the State of Kerala

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

A.R.Rajaesh Vs the Additional District Magistrate

Dominic a Vs Kerala Water Authority

Dominic a Vs Kerala Water Authority

The Manager High School Thiruvalayannar Vs the Deputy Tahsildar

P. Mohan Kumar Vs the District Collector, Pathanamthitta

Janeesh K. Vs the District Supply Officer