Quashed

G.Somanatha Pillay Alias Soman Gopalakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Feb 2018WP(C)/2780/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order declining their mutation application due to alleged insufficiency of documents. The High Court, observing that petitioners offered title deeds, quashed the order, granted liberty to produce documents within two weeks, and directed the Tahsildar to reconside

What did the court decide?

Ext.P9 order is quashed. Petitioners granted liberty to produce documents within two weeks. Direction to reconsider matter and attain finality within two months from 28.02.2018.

G.Somanatha Pillay Alias Soman Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 23RD MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 2780 of 2018 -----------------------

¶2

PETITIONER(S)

¶3

1 G.SOMANATHA PILLAY ALIAS SOMAN GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI AGED 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTARATHIL, MUNDAPPUZHA, RANNI P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶4

2 CHITHAMBARAMMAL S, W/O. SOMANATHA PILLAI, RESIDING AT KOTTARATHIL

¶5

MUNDAPPUZHA, RANNI P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶6

3 ANIL KUMAR E.K, LAHA ESTATE, LAHA P.O, KAPPAKADU, PERUNADU VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK.

¶7

4 SANAL KUMAR P.J, PUVANNAMMUTTIL HOUSE, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, CHITTAR, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶8

5 RAJU P.J, PUVANNAMMUTTIL HOUSE, POTTAMMUZHAI, LAHA P.O, PERUNADU VILLAGE, RANNI.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.T.J.MICHAEL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.

¶13

3. THE THAHSILDAR,

¶14

RANNI TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 672.

¶15

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUNADU VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 672.

¶16

BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MOHAMMED ANZAR.K.J.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.V.

¶19

WP(C).No. 2780 of 2018 (V)

¶20

¶21

PETITIONER(S ------------	)' --	EXHIBIT --------	S -
EXHIBIT P1		TRUE TAX F	PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF OR THE PROPERTY DATED 10/01/2017.
EXHIBIT P2		TRUE TAX F DATED	COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF BASIC OR THE 2ND PETITIONER'S PROPERTY WHICH IS 11/8/15.
EXHIBIT P3		TRUE LAND	COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF TAX BY BIJU THE SON OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4		TRUE 1ST P DATED	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE ETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT WHICH IS 06/05/2017.
EXHIBIT P5		TRUE LAND 24/6/	COPY OF THE SAID CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE REVENUE COMMISSIONER WHICH IS DATED 2017.
EXHIBIT P6		TRUE WITHO	COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION NO. 22316/17 UT EXHIBITS.
EXHIBIT P7		TRUE WHICH	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.22316/17 IS DATED 03/08/2017.
EXHIBIT P8		TRUE RESPO	COPY OF THE SAID LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD NDENT WHICH IS DATED 15/09/17.
EXHIBIT P9		TRUE RESPO	COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD NDENT WHICH IS DATED 17/11/2017.
EXHIBIT P10		TRUE SETTL	PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE EMENT REGISTER.
EXHIBIT P10(	A)	TRUE P SETTLE	HOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MENT REGISTER.
RESPONDENTS ------------	EX --	HIBITS: -------	NIL

¶22

/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE

¶23

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶24

W.P(C) No.2780 of 2018

¶25

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2018

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶28

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext.P9 order passed by the third respondent, viz, Tahsildar, Ranni Taluk, dated 17.11.2017, whereby mutation sought for by the petitioners is declined. The reason assigned in Ext.P9 is that the petitioners have not produced sufficient documents to establish the rights of the petitioners in order to secure mutation for the property in question. It is the case of the petitioners that even though substantial documents are produced, none of the said documents are taken into consideration by the statutory authority, which is an exercise to be undertaken by him in order to find out the claim put forth by the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.

¶29

From the order what I could gather is that the

¶30

W.P(C).2780/18 :2:

¶31

petitioners were heard and reasons are assigned. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are prepared to produce the title deed in order to establish their claim before the third respondent.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Government Pleader and perusing the pleadings and documents on record, it is only appropriate that the petitioners are given an opportunity to produce the documents available with the petitioners in order to establish their rights before the said Authority. Therefore, I quash Ext.P9 and direct the third respondent to reconsider the matter after receiving documents from the petitioners. The petitioners are given liberty to produce all necessary documents before the third respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners are directed to be present before the said Authority on 28.2.2018. The third respondent shall hear the petitioners and any other

¶33

W.P(C).2780/18 :3:

¶34

interested persons and attain finality to the same within a further period of two months from 28.02.2018.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

SHAJI P. CHALY Judge

¶38

okb.

¶39

//True copy//

¶40

P.A. to Judge

G.Somanatha Pillay Alias Soman Gopalakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Somanatha Pillay Alias Soman Gopalakrishna Pillai v. 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

M/S. Cargo Care International Vs Commissioner of Customs

Anitha J Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Gopinadhan Vs State of Kerala

Karthik B Vs Dr. G.P.Padmakumar

Sreehari.R Vs Dr.G.P.Padmakumar

Vivek.S. Vs Union of India