Allowed

Shihabudheen Kolekkarath v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC14 Nov 2018WP(C)/31696/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside an order withholding mutation pending Land Board directions. The court directed the Tahsildar and Village Officer to consider the mutation and basic land tax application within six weeks under the Transfer of Registry Rules, noting no court order currently interdicts the respondents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; mutation and basic land tax application remitted to competent respondents for disposal within six weeks under Transfer of Registry Rules.

Shihabudheen Kolekkarath Vs the Village Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 31696 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHIHABUDHEEN KOLEKKARATH

¶8

AGED 32 YEARS

¶9

S/O. ABDULLA K.P., NAFEESA MANZIL, KURUMATHOOR P.O., THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670 142

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KURUMATHOOR VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670 142

¶14

2 THE TAHSILDAR THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 142.

¶15

3 THE CHAIRMAN

¶16

TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 142.

¶17

SMT.A.C.VIDHYA,GOVT.PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 31696 of 2018

¶20

¶21

ALEXANDER THOMAS,J.

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(C) No.31696/2018

¶24

================================== Dated this the 14th day of November, 2018

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Prayers in the above caption Writ Petition (

¶27

Civil) are as follows:-

¶28

I) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 1^st respondent to effect mutation of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed in the name of the petitioner forthwith.

¶29

ii.) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 3^rd Respondent to issue necessary direction to the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶30

Iii) grant such other reliefs prayed for from time to time including cost of these proceedings.

¶31

2 . Heard Sri. T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel

¶32

appearing for petitioner and Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶33

3. According to the petitioner, he had acquired 4.05 Ares of property in Re-survey No.104 of Kurumathoor Village, Thaliparamba Taluk, Kannur revenue district, as per Ext.P1 registered sale deed No.4134/2017 dated 22.11.2017 of SRO, Thaliparamba.

¶34

WP(C).No. 31696 of 2018

¶35

¶36

After purchasing the said property, the petitioner had approached the 1^st Village Officer for effecting mutation in respect of the abovesaid property in his name. The 1^st respondent Village Officer had then

¶37

taken the stand that he could consider the said request only if an order issued by the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar, as Ext.P1 sale deed was registered pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment in W.P.(C) No.9064/2017, etc. A perusal of Ext.P2 judgment would reveal that when

¶38

the prior title holder in respect of the petitioner's property had attempted to sell his property, the same was refused to be registered and thereupon, he had approached this Court by filing

¶39

W.P.(C)No.9064/2017, which resulted in Ext.P2 judgment. In Ext.P2 judgment, it is stated that the stand of the respondent was that series of transactions were effected and documents were executed in respect of the properties, which form part of the total extent of 439.74 cents, which were

¶40

against the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms

¶41

WP(C).No. 31696 of 2018

¶42

¶43

Act, etc. This court as per Ext.P2 judgment directed

¶44

the respondents to register the sale deed concerned, if there are no other legal impediments, etc. Accordingly, the sale deed was registered in favour of the prior title holder, who in turn has conveyed the property to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 registered sale deed.

¶45

4. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 representation in 23.06.2018 before the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar and as the same was not considered, he had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.22536/ 2018. This Court as per Ext.P4 judgment rendered on 17.07.2018 in W.P.(C) No.22536/2018 had directed the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of mutation and acceptance of basic land tax and pass orders thereon within one month. It is thereafter, the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar has now issued the impugned Ext.P5 communication dated 23.08.2018 stating that the petitioner's request could be considered only after getting orders from the Taluk Land Board concerned.

¶46

WP(C).No. 31696 of 2018

¶47

¶48

5. Taking note of the abovesaid facts and

¶49

circumstances of the case, it is to be noted that, as of now, the respondents have no case that any competent court has passed any orders, whereby the respondents have been interdicted for mutating the property and accepting the basic land tax from the petitioner. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P5 order will stand set aside and the application made by the petitioner for mutation as well as Ext.P3 representation will stand remitted to the competent authority among respondents 2 and 1. The competent authority among respondents 2 and 1 will consider the request for mutation made by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions contained in the Transfer of Registry Rules and grant the same, if it is otherwise in order. It is made clear that the respondents cannot reject the plea of

¶50

the petitioner for grant of mutation on the ground that further orders are required from the Taluk Land Board. Necessary steps in this regard should be completed by respondents 2 and 1 without much delay

¶51

WP(C).No. 31696 of 2018

¶52

¶53

preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. However, it is made clear that grant of mutation in favour of the petitioner and acceptance of the basic

¶54

land tax from him in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 registered sale deed, will not by itself prejudice the competent authority among respondents,

¶55

more particularly respondent No.3, to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, as against the petitioner's property, if on objective

¶56

consideration, it is found to be warranted and justified and provided, the due process in that regard is fully adhered to.

¶57

With these observations and directions, the above Writ petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

SAS/14.11.2018

Sd/-

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶63

WP(C).No. 31696 of 2018

¶64

¶65

APPENDIX

¶66

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶67

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4134/2017 DATED 22.11.2017 OF SRO, TALIPARAMBA.

¶68

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 9064/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶69

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.6.2018 PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 22536/2018 DATED 17.7.2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶70

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.H2 12296/18 DATED 23.8.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶71

WP(C).No. 31696 of 2018

¶72

Shihabudheen Kolekkarath v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shihabudheen Kolekkarath 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charles K. Thomas Vs District Collector, Idukki

Abdul Rehman Vs the District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Painavu

Kunjumuhammed Vs State of Kerala

Padhmanabhan Cherikkalingal Vs the District Collector, Malappuram

Sindhu Satheesh Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammed Vs the State of Kerala