Disposed

Smitha Gopakumar v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC26 Jun 2018WP(C)/1395/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Tahsildar (2nd Respondent) to consider the petitioner's application for correction of survey numbers in revenue records and to hear all parties, including the 3rd respondent, within two months. If corrections are found necessary, the Court directed that consequent mutation be effected.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd Respondent to consider the application, hear the petitioner and 3rd respondent, and finalize corrections/mutation within two months.

Smitha Gopakumar Vs the Village Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 1395 of 2018

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

SMITHA GOPAKUMAR, W/O.R.GOPAKUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, FORNIX HEALTH CARE, DOOR NO.V/215(6), DAR-AL-SALAM COMPLEX, THOTTAKKATTUKARA P.O.,

¶9

ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683108.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA BAZAAR P.O., ALUVA-683101.

¶13

2. THE TAHSILDAR (L.R.), ALUVA,

¶14

MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA-673101.

¶15

ADDL R3 IMPLEADED

¶16

3. GEORGE JAMES,NEYSSERRY HOUSE,(CORRECTED)

¶17

THOTTAKKATTUKARA,

¶18

THOTTAKKATTUKARA P.O,ALUVA,ERNAKULAM-683108.

¶19

ADDL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.01.2018 IN IA NO.940/2018

¶20

ADDRESS AND NAME OF ADDL R3 CORRECTED AS “JOSE JAMES,

¶21

S/O VINCENT NAISSERRY,PUNNAKKAKATHOOT HOUSE, NEW LANE,THOTTAKKATTUKARA P.O,ALUVA-683108”

¶22

ADDRESS OF ADDL R3 IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 3.04.2018 IN IA NO.5965/2018.

¶23

R1,R2 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR

¶24

R3 BY ADVS. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR

¶25

SRI.TONY PETTAH

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.V.

¶27

WP(C).No. 1395 of 2018 (Y)

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶30

EXHIBIT P1	PHOTO COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.420 OF 2017 DATED 18.02.2017 OF ALUVA SUB-REGISTRY.
EXHIBIT P2	PHOTO COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE DATED 18.11.2016.
EXHIBIT P3	PHOTO COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE ALUVA MUNICIPALITY DATED 18.11.16.
EXHIBIT P4	PHOTO COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 12.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P5	PHOTO COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P6	PHOTO COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE SUB-REGISTRY, ALUVA.
EXHIBIT P7	PHOTO COPY OF THE APPROVED RE-SURVEY PLAN OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P8	PHOTO COPY OF THE T.P.ACCOUNT NO 12743 OF THE PREDECESSOR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9	PHOTO COPY OF THE T.P.ACCOUNT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	PHOTO COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR DATED 13.11.2017
EXHIBIT P11	PHOTO COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 16.1.2018.
RESPONDENTS EX --------------	HIBITS: ------
R3(A)	SETTLEMENT DEED NO 1145 OF 1990 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, ALUVA IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
R3(B)	TAX RECEIPT NO 4822898 VILLAGE OFFICE ALUVA.
R3(C)	SALE DEED NO 4609/1975 IN FAVOUR OF VINCENT.
R3(D)	COPY OF FILED MAP RE.SY.60,61 ALUVA VILLAGE.
	/TRUE COPY/
K.V. 3.07.2018	P.S.TO JUDGE

¶31

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(C) No.1395 of 2018

¶34

==================== Dated this the 26^th day of June, 2018

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The petitioner has approached this Court with the

¶37

following prayers:

¶38

“a. issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to correct the computer entry in parity with the existing T.P account of the vendor of the petitioner and other connected revenue records immediately.

¶39

b. direct the 1^st respondent to effect mutation of the properties covered by Ext.P1 in favour of the petitioner immediately on effecting correction.”

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶41

the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶42

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Exts.P8 to P10 documents would show that there is a mistake in the survey number entered in respect of the petitioner's property and that a correction in the revenue records would be necessitated. The petitioner has raised contentions with regard to the correctness of the survey numbers shown in his documents and contends that

¶43

¶44

W.P.(C) No.1395 of 2018

¶45

the issue can be settled without correcting the survey numbers in respect of his property.

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent would contend that an application for correction of the mistakes in the revenue records has already been submitted by the petitioner and that steps have been taken pursuant thereto by Exts.P10 and P11 proceedings. The learned counsel would contend that the 3^rd respondent is also to be heard while any orders are passed on the petitioner's application.

¶47

It is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, that the question of correction as requested by the petitioner is being considered. It is stated that it is only after the files are received from the Office of the Survey Superintendent that the issue can be finalized.

¶48

In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the application preferred by the petitioner as is evident from Exts.P10 and P11 and to take a final decision thereon after hearing the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶49

W.P.(C) No.1395 of 2018

¶50

¶51

judgment. If corrections are found necessary, consequent

¶52

mutation shall also be effected.

¶53

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶56

sab

Smitha Gopakumar v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smitha Gopakumar 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

Teepro Infra-Projects Limited Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Mathew George Vs the State of Kerala

Jayaprakash Vs State of Kerala

Jessy Wilson Vs Commissioner of Excise

Mohammed Ali Vs Kerala University of Fisheries

Ebenazer @ Anbuswamy Vs the State of Kerala