Disposed

Sumathy, v. the District Collector

Kerala HC3 Dec 2018WP(C)/33588/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court observed that a patta had already been issued to the original owner and the petitioner's right is based on an unregistered agreement. Instead of granting the petition for a new patta, the court directed authorities to provide certified copies of existing patta, final decrees, and sketches to the illiterate petitioner upon application.

What did the court decide?

Directed authorities to grant certified copies of the original patta and final decree proceedings to the petitioner without delay upon application and payment of fees.

Sumathy, Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 33588 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SUMATHY, W/O THANKAPPAN, AGED 66 YEARS, PULIKKULATH HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, CHERAI, ERNAKULAM - 683 514.

¶8

BY ADVS. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA JEEVA KUMARI P.S

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KOCHI -30, PIN- 682 030.

¶11

2 TAHASILDAR, KOCHI TALUK, TALUK OFFIE, FORT KOCHI-682002.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, CHERAI P.O., PIN-683 514.

¶13

*4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNAMBAM-683515 ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT

¶14

5. SMT.DEVAKI, KORPULLITHARA CHERAI P.O., PIN 683 514

¶15

..2..

¶16

W.P.(C)No.33588/2018

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SMT.A.C.VIDHYA,GOVT.PLEADER

¶19

*Additional respondent No.5 is impleaded as per order dated 3.12.2018 in I.A.No.1/2018

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The prayers in the above writ petition (Civil) are as follows :

¶23

“I. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the second

¶24

respondent to grant patta to the 7.5 cents of land assigned to the petitioner in Pallippuram Village, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam district.

¶25

II. Issue Assignment certificate as per LA 14/18/84, Ernakulam District to the petitioner.

¶26

III. Issue any other order or direction which may deem just, fit and necessary in the discharge of justice.”

¶27

Heard Smt.K.P.Santhamma, learned counsel for the

¶28

petitioner and Smt.A.C.Vidya, the learned Government Pleader

¶29

appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. Notice to additional respondent No.5 is dispensed with .

¶30

W.P.(C)No.33588/2018

¶31

..3..

¶32

3. According to the petitioner, 5^th respondent had

¶33

transferred her property having an extent of 7.5 cents in Pallippuram village to the petitioner on the basis of an unregistered agreement and the petitioner is now in lawful and unquestioned possession, occupation and enjoyment of the said landed property having an extent of 7.5 cents for the last more than 35 years. The said property is situated within the limits of ward 14 of Pallippuram panchayath and Pallippuram village. The petitioner had later submitted Ext.P8 application dated 13.9.2018 and Ext.P9 representation dated 28.9.2018 before the second respondent Tahsildar and third respondent village officer respectively seeking for assignment of land and for issuance of Patta inorder to enable her to perfect title. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to scheduled caste community and has got preference for the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of assignment of the land, that the petitioner does not have any other piece of land than the landed property, the petitioner and her husband are illiterate persons who

¶34

W.P.(C)No.33588/2018

¶35

..4..

¶36

belong to scheduled caste community and that officials as well as private persons are disturbing the petitioner and her family and that many persons are having an eye on the petitioner's property so as to grab it unlawfully etc., is the apprehension raised by the petitioner. In the light of these factual averments that the petitioner has sought a direction of this court to ensure that orders are passed in the Land Assignment Rules in order to ensure that the petitioner secures Patta for the said property so as to perfect a title etc.

¶37

The second respondent Tahsildar, Kochi has now filed a statement dated 27/11/2018 through learned Government Pleader. It is stated in paragraph 2 thereof that the property in question is situated in Sy.No.478/10 of Pallippuram village, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam revenue district. Further that basic tax receipt was earlier issued for 6.85 Ares of property in the name of one Chathan Janaki. Further it is stated that village records would reveal that Pattayam in respect of the said land was actually issued for 6. 11 ares comprised in old Sy.No.26/150 to one Kizhakkanthundathil Kunhipennu as per

¶38

W.P.(C)No.33588/2018

¶39

..5..

¶40

Annexure R2(a) proceedings. Further that on inspection of the property it is found that the Pattayam property is in Re.Sy.No.478/10 and it is also found that the property is mutated wrongly in the name of Nikathil Chathan Janaki as per Annexure R2(b) Thandapper account. Further it is stated that the legal heirs of Kunhipennu have paid land tax in respect of the property till 2018-19. Further it is stated in paragraph 3 of the said statement of respondent No.2 that the above said Kunhipennu has three daughters i.e., Janaki, Karthyani and Devaki (fifth respondent). It is further stated that the legal heirs of Karthyani ( Chandrika, Sadanandan, Thilakan, Sabu, Prakasan) as well as Janaki, who is one among the three daughters of Kunhipennu had filed O.S.No.364/1996 before the Munsiff's Court,North Paravur, wherein the above said Devaki and petitioner herein were arrayed as defendants. Further that as per order in I.A.No.1855/01 dated 11.09.2001 in the said suit, the land has been partitioned with the assistance of the Advocate Commissioner as per Annexure R2(c) proceedings of the Civil Court in I.A.No.1855/2001

¶41

..6..

¶42

W.P.(C)No.33588/2018

¶43

in O.S.No.364/1996. Further that a sketch has also been prepared by the Advocate Commissioner in the said O.S. as per Annexure R2(d). It is further stated that the petitioner is residing in the house in fifth respondent's share who is one of the three daughters of Kunhipennu, that the petitioner had submitted an application to assign the land as L.A.No.14/18/S4. Further it is averred in paragraph 4 of the statement of respondent No.2 that the petitioner obtained land from fifth respondent, daughter of Kunhipennu and the petitioner is only entitled to plot of land as shown in Annexure R2(d) sketch of the Advocate Commissioner, that it is only when the legal heirs of Karthyani and Janaki attempted to sell this share in the property that the petitioner has filed the application for assignment, that the second respondent will consider the application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass orders as early as possible.

¶44

From the above said pleadings of the second respondent

¶45

Tahsildar, it can be seen that Patta has already been issued to

¶46

W.P.(C)No.33588/2018

¶47

..7..

¶48

Kunhipennu as per Annexure R2(a) proceedings. Kunhipennu is the mother of fifth respondent from whom the petitioner is stated to have purchased the property on the basis of an unregistered agreement. Therefore it appears that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners predecessor has already got Patta and therefore there is no necessity for any patta being issued to the petitioner as it appears from the pleadings of the second respondent that the petitioner's land in which petitioner claims right is one which is part of the land covered by the patta issued as per Annexure R2(a). Further on a perusal of Annexure R2(c), it is seen that final decree was rendered in O.S.No.364/1996 on the files of Munsiff's Court, North Paravur. Further it is stated in the above said pleadings of the second respondent that the petitioner can claim right only in respect of the plot of land in Annexure R2(d) sketch of the Advocate Commissioner which has been alloted to fifth respondent. The petitioner makes a claim that the petitioner had purchased the said property from fifth respondent. Thus going by the admitted

¶49

W.P.(C)No.33588/2018

¶50

..8..

¶51

pleadings of the petitioner she has obtained right of the said property only on the basis of an unregistered agreement and not on the basis of a registered sale deed or gift deed from fifth respondent. The case as projected in the respective pleadings of the petitioner and the second respondent appears that there is no necessity for the petitioner to secure any patta as patta has already been granted as per Annexure R2(a). Therefore it is for the petitioner to ensure that she establishes the right over the property on the basis of registered deed executed by fifth respondent in her favour and then seek for mutation of the said property and for acceptance of basic tax receipt etc. It is clearly admitted in the pleadings of the second respondent that mistake has occurred in Annexure R2(b) Thandapper account wherein the Thandapper holder is shown as Nikathil Chathan whereas the right for the said property is regulated by Annexure R2(d) final decree proceedings of the civil court. The petitioner may also make application for correction of the said mistake for which necessary step may also be taken by respondents 1 and 2 after notice

¶52

W.P.(C)No.33588/2018

¶53

..9..

¶54

to the affected persons.

¶55

In the meanwhile, official respondents will give a breathing time to the petitioner to ensure that she secures registered deed in her favour from fifth respondent inorder to enable her to proceed further to seek grant of mutation and acceptance of basic tax in her name and also for alloting consequential separate Thandapper account in her name in respect of the property alloted to fifth respondent in case the petitioner produces the registered sale deed.

¶56

The petitioner's counsel submits that petitioner and her husband belongs to schedule caste community and they are poor and illiterate person and they are unaware of many of these factual aspects and that this court may direct the competent authority to grant certified copy of Annexure R2(a) patta to the petitioner and also direct the civil court to grant certified copies of the final decree proceedings as in Annexure R2(c) and R2(d) etc. In the interest of justice taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a poor and illiterate lady, who belongs to scheduled caste community, it is

¶57

W.P.(C)No.33588/2018

¶58

..10..

¶59

ordered that on the petitioner making requisite application for grant of certified copy of Annexure R2(a) patta, the competent authority of the respondents or the Tahsildar ( land assignment) concerned etc. shall grant certified copies of the same to the petitioner without further delay subject to payment of fees or costs in that regard. It is also ordered that in case the petitioner makes an application for certified copies of the final decree proceedings in O.S.No.364/1996 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, North Paravur as in Annexure R2(c) and R2(d) etc, the said court will also grant certified copy of the final decree proceedings to the petitioner without further delay subject to payment of fees/cost in that regard and also subject to submission of proper application in that regard etc.

¶60

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

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS

JUDGE

W.P.(C)No.33588/2018

¶66

..11..

¶67

APPENDIX

¶68

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶69

EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF RATION CARD OF THE PETITIONER'S FAMILY. EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF PETITIONER'S VOTERS ID CARD. EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF PETITIONER'S AADHAR CARD. EXHIBIT P4 NIL. EXHIBIT P4 A THE COPY OF ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 05.10.2018 WITH CONSUMER NO.1156052019192. EXHIBIT P4 B THE COPY OF ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 05.10.2018 WITH CONSUMER NO.1156052019192. EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S HOUSE. EXHIBIT P6 THE COPY OF CARD DATED 27.01.2015 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN REVENUE ADALATH. EXHIBIT P7 THE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28.09.2018 OF THE APPLICATION OF PATTA RECEIVED FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 13.09.2018 TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28.09.2018 TO FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶70

W.P.(C)No.33588/2018

¶71

..12..

¶72

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶73

ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM ISSUED FOR 6.11 ARES IN OLD SURVEY NO.26/150 TO ONE KIZHAKKANTHUNDATHIL KUNHIPENNU IN L.A.NO.511/1970

¶74

ANNEXURE R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPPER ACCOUNT

¶75

ANNEXURE R2(C) TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.1855/2001 IN O.S.NO.364/96

¶76

ANNEXURE R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S.NO.364/96.

Sumathy, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumathy, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Valsala Vs District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Ashakumar Vs State of Kerala

Sivadas V.C Vs the District Collector, Idukki

Pallikkathody Madhavi Vs the Union of India

Molecular Multispeciality Hospital Vs State of Kerala