Disposed

Maya Gopinath v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2018WP(C)/16564/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, holding possession of property, sought a direction for early consideration of her applications for mutation and a possession certificate filed with the respondents. The court directed the second and third respondents to consider these applications within stipulated timelines.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second respondent to consider mutation application within four months; direction to third respondent to consider possession certificate application within two months of mutation.

Maya Gopinath Vs the State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶4

WP(C).No. 16564 of 2018

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MAYA GOPINATH.R., AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI VILASAM VEEDU, POOTHAMKARA MURI, ELAMANNOOR.P.O, ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691524.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.T.S.SARATH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA -689645.

¶10

THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR-689649.

¶11

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689649.

¶12

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SMT. VINITHA B., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 16564 of 2018 (U)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)'E	XHIBITS:
EXHIBIT.P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.241/2018 OF SRO, ENADIMANGALAM.
EXHIBIT.P2	THE TRUE COPY FO THE SETTLEMETN DEED NO.158/2018 OF SRO, ENADIMANGALAM.
EXHIBIT.P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 17/08/2015 IN O.P(MV)1641/2008 OF ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT-III, PATHANAMTHITTA.
EXHIBIT.P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/03/2018 IN W.P.(C)10296/2018.
EXHIBIT.P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WHILE ACCEPTING THE FEES FROM THE PETITIONER UNDER TRANSFER OF REGISTRY RULES.
EXHIBIT.P6	THE TAX RECEIPTS EVIDENCING THE SOME OF THE PROPERTY UNDER THE TITLE AND POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND.
EXHIBIT.P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 10/05/2018 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶18

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA OT JUDGE

18/6/2018

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶24

W.P.(C) No. 16564 of 2018

¶25

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2018

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

According to the petitioner, petitioner is the holder in absolute possession of property covered by Ext. P1. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted an application seeking mutation of the property under the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules, evident from Ext. P5 receipt. Petitioner has also submitted Ext. P7 application before the third respondent seeking issuance of possession certificate. Both are pending consideration. The

¶28

sole relief sought for is direction for early consideration of the

¶29

aforesaid application.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. There will be a direction to the

¶31

second respondent to consider the application pertaining to

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 16564 of 2018 2

¶33

Ext.P5 receipt at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within four months form the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be a consequential direction to the third respondent to consider Ext. P7 application seeking issuance of possession certificate on the petitioner producing relevant documents on account on the mutation carried out. A decision shall be taken at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of the mutation document.

¶34

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶35

Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

16/06/2018

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

Maya Gopinath v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya Gopinath v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guruvayoorappan Vs Jyothi M.C

George Poovanpilly Vs Sri. Tomin.J. Thachankary. IPS

Rajesh C.R. Vs State of Kerala

P.Anil Kumar Vs the Assistant Engineer

George Vs District Collector, Pathanamthitta

Anwer Sadath Vs the District Collector Malappuram