Allowed

Ramakrishnan v. the District Collector

Kerala HC12 Nov 2018WP(C)/29360/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mutation of property based on a sale deed but was required to obtain a civil decree declaring the civil death of a missing co-sharer. Court held the requirement was illegal under Transfer of Registry Rules. Petition allowed, order remitted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection order set aside; application remitted to authorities to consider on merits per Transfer of Registry Rules; authorities directed to decide within six weeks.

Ramakrishnan Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018/21ST KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No.29360 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE UNNI NARAYANAN, PADINJAREPURAKKAL, TRIKADIRI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVOCATE SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, PIN 678001.

¶11

2 THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM, PIN-679101.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TRIKADIRI-1 VILLAGE, P.O. TRIKADIRI, PIN-679502.

¶13

4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.

¶14

BY SMT.A.C.VIDHYA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶16

12.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------W.P.(C)No.29360 of 2018

¶18

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2018

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The prayers in the above Writ Petition

¶21

(Civil) are as follows.

¶22

“

¶23

i. Declare that the respondent revenue authority is legally bound to effect mutation of petitioner's property covered by Exhibit P1 title deed. ii. Declare that the petitioner is not legally bound to produce the decree of civil death from a competent court with reference to any individual for effecting mutation of his property covered by Exhibit P1 title deed. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 3^rd respondent to effect mutation of petitioner's property covered by Exhibit P1 title deed. iv. Grant such other reliefs found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”

¶24

2. Heard Sri.P.Jayaram, learned counsel

¶25

appearing for the petitioner, and

¶26

Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned Government Pleader

¶27

W.P.(C).No.29360/2018

¶28

..3..

¶29

appearing for the respondents.

¶30

3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to declare that, the competent respondent revenue authority concerned is legally bound to effect mutation of the property covered by Ext.P-1 title deed.

¶31

4. It appears from the pleadings and materials on record that, Ext.P-1 registered sale deed No.2331/2018 of SRO, Cherpulasseri, registered in the name of the petitioner was received online at the 3^rd respondent Village Office requesting for Transfer of Registry. AS

¶32

per Ext.P-1, land with an extent of 1.1215 Hectares in Resurvey No.228/1 of Block No.59 in Thrikkadeeri-1 Village, was transferred by eight persons including (1) Sobha, D/o.Unni Narayanan (2)Bhaskaran,S/o.Ramakrishnan (3) Gopalakrishnan, S/o.Ramakrishnan (4) Udayakumar, S/o.Ramakrishnan

¶33

W.P.(C).No.29360/2018

¶34

..4..

¶35

(5)Pushpa, D/o.Ramakrishnan (6) Bindu, D/o.Ramakrishnan (7)Unnikrishnan,S/o.Chami and (8)Chandran,S/o.Chami. The prior title deed of Ext.P-1 is purchase certificate No.72/1986 dated 31.3.1986 issued by the Land Tribunal, Sreekrishnapuram, in the names of (1)Unni Narayanan (2) Devaki (3) Cherotty. It is not in dispute that all the abovesaid persons in whose names the purchase certificate have been issued,

¶36

are now no more. It is admitted in the statement dated 25.10.2018 filed by the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar, that the local enquiries shows that the heirs of Late Unni Narayanan is his wife Late Leela and their children Sobhana and Ramakrishnan. The heirs of Late Devaki are her 6 children out of which one person Jayaprakash

¶37

went missing about 25 years ago. This aspect

¶38

of the matter is also stated in the

¶39

W.P.(C).No.29360/2018

¶40

..5..

¶41

abovesaid statement of the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar. The heirs of Late Devaki other than Jayaprakash are the executant Nos.2 to 6 in Ext.P-1 sale deed. The prayer made by the petitioner for mutation of property in his name based on Ext.P-1 registered sale deed has now been denied by the respondents 2 and 3 on the ground that no information is available about the missing of the abovesaid Jayaprakash, and that

¶42

therefore, it is for the petitioner to obtain decree from the competent civil court declaring the civil death of the abovesaid missing person Jayaprakash, in case the petitioner has a case that the said Jayaprakash is presumed to be dead. The 2^nd respondent has also taken additional objection in the said statement that, the petitioner has executed Ext.P-1 sale deed concealing the right of Jayaprakash on the land

¶43

W.P.(C).No.29360/2018

¶44

..6..

¶45

as the said person Jayaprakash and other holders of the above land including Sri.Udayakumar, who

¶46

is the brother of the missing person, and Sri.Chandran who is father's brother of the missing person, and neighbours of Sri.Ramakrishnan has orally admitted that there is such a person named Jayaprakash who went missing about 25 years ago. As regards the 2^nd ground it is to be noted that the executants of

¶47

Ext.P-1 registered sale deed are the eight executants mentioned therein and petitioner is the assignee of the property thereby. Therefore

¶48

the petitioner cannot be blamed by the respondents as regards the suppression of the facts relating to Jayaprakash and his missing in the recitals of Ext.P-1 registered sale deed.

¶49

That upon, the main stand taken by the 2^nd respondent that, the petitioner should

¶50

W.P.(C).No.29360/2018

¶51

..7..

¶52

necessarily obtain a decree from the competent civil court declaring the civil death of the abovesaid missing person, before the request of the petitioner is to be considered, appears to be patently against the specific provisions contained in Clause (ii) of Rule 27 of the Transfer of Registry Rules.

¶53

5. Clause (ii) of Rule 27 of the Transfer of Registry Rules conceives of the situation of succession in case of disappearance of registered holder, and it is stipulated therein that, in case of disappearance for more than 7 years of the registered holder of a holding and in the absence of any evidence to show that he is still alive, he should be considered as dead and registry transferred in the name of his legal heirs accordingly, etc . Such a specific provision is made in the first limb of Clause (ii) of Rule

¶54

W.P.(C).No.29360/2018

¶55

..8..

¶56

27, to deal with the case of disappearance of the registered land holder for more than 7 years.

¶57

6. In the instant case, the abovesaid missing person Jayaprakash is not even a registered land holder of the property concerned, and it is admitted by the 2^nd respondent that, the local enquiries has revealed that Sri.Jayaprakash has gone missing since the last 25 years, which is more than the minimum outer time limit of 7 years envisaged in Clause (ii) of Rule 27. Therefore, the abovesaid provision contemplated in the first limb of Clause (ii) of Rule 27 would also be applicable with equal force or greater vigor, in the case of missing of Jayaprakash, who is one of the co-sharers.

¶58

7. In that view of the matter, the impugned rejection order Ext.P-2 will stand set aside, and

¶59

the application for mutation made by the

¶60

W.P.(C).No.29360/2018

¶61

..9..

¶62

petitioner for mutation of property covered by Ext.P-1 will stand remitted to the competent authority respondents 2 and 3. The competent authority respondents 2 and 3 will consider the application made by the petitioner, for mutation of property covered by Ext.P-1 on merits, and in accordance of provisions contained in the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1961, and if necessary, after notice to all the executants thereto. It is made clear that, the competent authority respondents 2 and 3 cannot reject the request of the petitioner for mutation, on the ground that the petitioner should necessarily produce a decree from the civil court regarding the civil death of Jayaprakash. Necessary orders

¶63

in this regard should be passed on the application of the petitioner by the competent authority respondents 2 and 3, without much delay

¶64

W.P.(C).No.29360/2018

¶65

..10..

¶66

preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶67

With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally

¶68

disposed of.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶71

MMG

¶72

W.P.(C).No.29360/2018

¶73

..11..

¶74

APPENDIX

¶75

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶76

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2331/2018 SRO, CHERPULASSERY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER/NOTICE DATED 19/7/2018 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, TRIKKADIRI-1 VILLAGE.

Ramakrishnan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnan v. the District Collector

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

Mohammedali @ Bapputty Vs State of Kerla

M.N. Padmini Gopinath Vs the District Collector

St. Antonys Higher Secondary School Vs State of Kerala

Haneefa Rawther Vs the District Collector, Collectorate, Pathanamthitta

Rajan Rawther Vs State of Kerala

Thampi Vs State of Kerala