Disposed

Nandanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Dec 2018WP(C)/33726/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Purchasers challenged refusal of transfer of registry and mutation amid a private title dispute. The court disposed of the petition by directing recourse to an appeal before the District Collector, excluding the specified period for limitation and requiring a decision after hearing the parties within two months of production of the certified judgment.

What did the court decide?

Appeal to District Collector permitted with specified limitation exclusion; merits decision directed after hearing within two months of production of certified judgment.

Nandanan Vs State of Kerala — 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

WEDNESDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 NANDANAN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.KUNJAN, CHAITHNYA HOUSE, PURAKKAD VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT POLICE QUARTERS, NO. CC.41/368358/1280, ERNAKUKLAM.

¶8

2 PRASANNAN

¶9

AGED 52 YEARS

¶10

S/O GOPI, THANDASSERY HOUSE, ERNAKULAM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT ALBERT ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682011.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM SRI.N.RAJESH

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695001

¶15

2 ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, FORT KOCHI-1.

¶16

3 VILLAGE OFFICER NJARACKAL VILLAGE OFFICE, NJARACKAL P.O. -682025.

¶17

4 ARUNAN AGED 68 YEARS S/O SANKARAN, MARADACKAL HOUSE, NJARACKAL VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, NJARACKAL P.O.-682505.

¶18

5 RENJINI AGED 55 YEARS W/O ARUNAN, MARADACKAL HOSUE, NJARACKAL VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, NJARACKAL P.O. 682505.

¶19

-2-

¶20

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶21

6 NAMITHA

¶22

D/O. ARUNAN, CONSULTANT NEUROPATHY AND YOGA ANNEX AMRUTHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-26.

¶23

DR. NAMITHA, AGED 31 MADARACKAL, GREEN LAND HOMES, PATHIKKAD ROAD, THAZHEKKAD, KALLETTUMKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680683.

¶24

7 ADDL.R7THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶25

ADDL.R7 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5/12/2018 IN WPC 33726/2018.

¶26

BY ADVS. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY

¶27

OTHER PRESENT:

¶28

SMT.A.C.VIDHYA,GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3 AND ADDL.R7, SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY FOR R4 AND R5, SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH FOR R6

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

-3-

¶31

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶32

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ******************************************************* W.P.(C) No.33726 of 2018

¶33

¶34

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2018

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioners are essentially aggrieved by the impugned Exts.P23 and P24 proceedings dated 25.09.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent, whereby their applications for grant of transfer of registry and mutation of the properties have been rejected.

¶37

It is stated that the properties in question had originally belong to R6 (Namitha). R4 (Arunan) is the father of R6. The marital relationship between R4 (Arunan) and the mother of R6 was dissolved and thereafter R4 had married R5 (Renjini). The daughterR6 had executed Ext.P1 power of attorney dated 16.06.2009 of SRO Njarackal in favour of her father R4, authorising him to look after the properties as well as for the sale of the said properties. On the strength of Ext.P1 power attorney, R4 had executed Ext.P2 registered sale deed dated 09.11.2010 conveying the said properties in favour of his second wife, R5. The relationship between the father and

¶38

-4-

¶39

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶40

daughter (R4 and R6) got strained. It appears that R6 had executed Ext.P14 cancellation deed dated 08.11.2010 whereby Ext.P1 power of attorney dated 16.06.2009 was cancelled. Ext.P14 cancelled deed dated 08.11.2010 has been registered through the SRO, Ernakulam in the residence of R6. Whereas the petitioner pointed out that Ext.P1 power of attorney dated 16.06.2009 was registered at SRO, Njarackal. It is stated that the parties belonging to Njarackal and the subject property is also within the limits of SRO, Njarackal.

¶41

As mentioned herein above, Ext.P2 sale deed dated 09.11.2010 was executed by R4 in favour of R5 on the strength of Ext.P1 registered power of attorney dated 09.11.2010. Consequent to the conveyance of the property in favour of R5 as per Ext.P2 registered sale deed dated 09.11.2010, the property in question was mutated in favour of R5 and land tax has also been accepted from her.

¶42

Further, it appears that on getting information about Ext.P2 sale deed, the 6^th respondent had filed Ext.P13 suit as O.S.No.106/2011 on 13.01.2011 before the Sub Court, Kochi for

¶43

-5-

¶44

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶45

setting aside Ext.P2 sale deed. The said original suit was dismissed by the Sub Court, Kochi on 05.09.2013 as per Ext.P15 judgment for non-prosecution of the suit by the plaintiff. It is after dismissal of the said suit on 15.09.2013, that R5 had sold the said property to the two petitioners herein as per Exts.P4 and P5 sale deeds, both registered on 24.04.2016 at SRO, Njarackal. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed Exts.P6 and P7 applications before R2 (Additional Tahsildar) for grant of transfer of registry and mutation of the said properties covered by Exts.P4 and P5 sale deeds in accordance with the provisions contained in the Transfer of Registry Rules.

¶46

Further it appears that R6 had made attempts to restore the said suit before the Civil Court concerned by filing Ext.P17 application dated 29.01.2016. Ext.P17 restoration application was dismissed by the Civil Court on 01.06.2017. Thereafter R6 had again filed Ext.P18 application dated 26.09.2017 for restoring the restoration application for effectuating the restoration of the suit. Ext.P18 application was also dismissed. When the petitioners had approached the 2^nd respondent for effecting mutation, he had declined to take steps to effect the mutation for the property. Hence

¶47

-6-

¶48

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶49

petitioners are approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No. 36449/2017 which this Court had disposed of as per Ext.P21 judgment on 05.06.2018 and directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the application for mutation. By this time, R6 had filed two more applications for restoring the applications which were dismissed for default in relation to the main matter for restoration of this suit. It is stated that the said applications are also been dismissed.

¶50

Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P21 judgment, the 2^nd respondent had heard the parties and has now dismissed Exts.P6 and P7 applications for grant of mutation as per impugned Exts.P23 and P24 proceedings rendered on 25.09.2018. The gist of the grounds of rejection as disclosed in Exts.P23 and P24 are as follows:

¶51

a. Ext.P2 sale deed dated 09.11.2010 has been executed after Ext.P14 cancellation deed dated 08.11.2010 whereby Ext.P1 power of attorney was cancelled.

¶52

b. The above said original suit filed by R6 is pending.

¶53

-7-

¶54

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶55

The petitioner would contend that both the above said grounds are untenable in law.

¶56

Respondent No.4 has filed a separate counter affidavit, whereby the plea of the petitioners for grant of mutation had been supported by that party. The real dispute is now between the petitioners on the one hand and R6. Of course, petitioners are supported by R4 and R5 .

¶57

The 6^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 23.11.2018. One of the preliminary objection raised by R6 is that the rejection of mutation request has been made by the 2^nd respondentAdditional Tahsildar, who is the original authority and that a tier of appeals and revisions are clearly provided in the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 and that in a case like this, where there is serious contest between the disputants and their dispute is not mainly only between the official respondents and the party seeking mutation, this Court may not exercise its discretion at least at the present stage and may relegate the party to avail the appropriate statutory remedy as envisaged in Rule 18 or 19 of the Transfer of Registry Rules 1966.

¶58

-8-

¶59

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶60

Various contentions on the merits of the matter are also advanced in the said counter affidavit. The essence of the contention is that the power of attorney has been cancelled a day prior to the execution of the sale deed by R4 in favour of the R5. Therefore, though the properties had been mutated in favour of R5, since the very title of R5 is lacking and so it is not right and proper to grant mutation in favour of the petitioners, who trace their title to not only to the sale deed executed in their favour by R5, but also to the prior title deed of R5, who obtained it on the basis of Ext.P2 sale deed. It is pointed out that since Ext.P2 sale has been effected after cancellation of the power of attorney granted by R6 in favour of her father R4, it is not legally right for grant of mutation even in favour of the petitioners, even though properties were earlier mutated in favour of R5. Further, it is stated that though the application for restoration of suit and the subsequent applications for restoring the restoration applications have been dismissed by the Civil Court, now I.A.No.695/2018 and 696/2018 have been filed by R6 in the above said original suit seeking to set aside the said applications dismissed for nonprosecution and so as to effectuate the consideration of the matter on

¶61

-9-

¶62

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶63

merits and that an application has also been filed to condone the delay in preferring the subsequent application for restoration. As regards, one of the vital contention raised by the petitioners that no notice in the manner known to law has been issued by R6 to R4 prior to Ext.P14 deed cancelling Ext.P2 power of attorney, it is stated without giving any details that R4 was informed by R6 of such cancellation. The details of making such prior notice has not been dealt with in the pleadings of R6.

¶64

After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that though the petitioners have made contentions which require in-depth and serious consideration, this Court is persuaded to take the view that in a matter like this, where there the contest is between the private disputants and the dispute is not mainly as between the official respondents and the party seeking mutation, and taking into consideration the nature of the issues raised in the said petition, the interest of justice would be advanced if the petitioners are relegated to seek the appellate remedy conferred under the Transfer of Registry Rules. However, since serious contentions had been raised by the petitioners, this Court would propose to delineate some of the vital

¶65

-10-

¶66

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶67

contentions advanced by the petitioners, so as to effectuate its consideration by the Appellate authority concerned.

¶68

The first contention of the petitioners is that it is, by now too well established that grant of transfer of registry and mutation in favour of a party as per the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 and acceptance of basic land tax for him as to the provisions contained in Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder, will not by itself confer any title to the party concerned and it is only an arrangement made for the sake of collection of revenue of State and that this position has been enshrined with all clarity in Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, which stipulates that the summary enquiry and decision thereon, is only arrangement for fiscal purposes and does not affect the legal rights of any person in respect of the lands covered by the decisions in transfer of registry cases and the question of legal rights will always subject to adjudication by Civil Courts and pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with the judicial decisions. Therefore, it is pointed out that the fiscal arrangements made for collection of revenue cannot be the legal basis for any conclusive determination for the

¶69

-11-

¶70

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶71

question of title, which is always open to be adjudicated and determined by the competent civil adjudicatory forum. More particularly, it is urged that the matters relating to basic land tax and basic tax register etc. are covered by the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 framed under the said Act. Section 5 deals with charge of land tax and Section 5(2) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, mandates that basic land tax charged on any land shall be paid by the land holder concerned. “ land holder ” has been defined in Section 3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act reads as follows:

¶72

(3) “land holder” means,-

¶73

(a) in relation to any land held by a cultivating tenant as defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964), such cultivating tenant;

¶74

(b) in relation to any land in the possession of a kanam tenant as defined in the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 (XXIV of 1955), such kanam tenant;

¶75

(c) in relation to any land which has not been surveyed and is not held by a cultivating tenant referred to in suchclause (a), the proprietor of such land;

¶76

(d) in relation to any other land, the registered holder for the time being of such land,

¶77

-12-

¶78

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶79

and includes his legal representatives and assigns and any person who under any law for the time being in force is liable for the payment of public revenue due in respect of the land held by him.

¶80

It is pointed out that in the instant case, the factual contingencies in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 3(3) will not arise and as the 5^th respondent was the registered land holder in respect of the above said property pursuant to the mutation granted in her favour on the basis of Ext.P2 sale deed, and as the said registered land holder has assigned the said property by Exts.P4 and P5 sale deeds in favour of the petitioners, the assignees of such registered land holder will step into the shoes of the “registered land holder” and would satisfy the definition of “land holder” going by the statutory provisions in section 3(3) more particularly, clause (d) thereof. Therefore, irrespective as to the question of title, as of now, so long as R5 is the registered land holder of the property in question and so long as R5 has assigned the said property to the petitioners, petitioners would stand in the shoes of the assignees and therefore would fulfil the definition of land holder as understood in Section 3(3), more particularly, clause (d) thereof. Hence, it is pointed out

¶81

-13-

¶82

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶83

that the competent revenue officials like R2, R3, R7 etc. are under the statutory obligation and duty to ensure that land tax is collected from such land holder as understood in Section 3(3)(d). Otherwise, it would amount to abdication of the statutory obligations and duties of the competent revenue officials. The issue is not merely the liability of the land holder to pay the basic land tax, but rather it is the statutory obligation and duty of the competent revenue officials to collect revenue from the land holder as understood in Section 3(3)(d). Otherwise, it would amount to violating the mandate of Section 5(2) r/w. Section 3(3)(d) of the Kerala land Tax Act. Further, it is pointed out that Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 framed thereunder Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 envisages a register called the Basic Tax Register (BTR) which shall be maintained in the Village and Taluk offices. It is also pointed out that the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 is a non-statutory rule and would be subservient to the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act and Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 framed thereunder. Hence it is the statutory obligation and duty of the competent revenue officials to collect basic land tax from the land holder as understood in Section 3(3) and then make

¶84

-14-

¶85

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶86

necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register as envisaged in Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972. Further, Section 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, mandates that the arrangement made under the Kerala Land Tax Act shall be a general revenue settlement and expressly situated therein that this shall be notwithstanding anything in any enactment, grant, deed or other transaction and the arrangement made under that Act for the levy of basic tax shall be deemed to be the general revenue settlement of the State. Consequently, necessary changes in the Basic Tax Register should be made and so as to be in consonance with Section 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Act and Rule 4 of the said Rules and application for grant of mutation under the Transfer of Registry Rules should also be considered. Taking into account the crucial fact in a case like this, where the registered land holder has assigned their full rights to persons like the petitioners, who are the assignees of the registered land holder and therefore, would fulfil the definition of “land holder” as understood in Section 3(3). Hence it is contended that de hors the questions of any title as between seen that is raised by R6, the petitioners who are bonafide purchasers from R5 and are entitled for

¶87

-15-

¶88

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶89

acceptance of basic land tax from them and also for mutation, as the properties had been mutated in favour of R5 and basic land tax has also been accepted from R5.

¶90

The next contention of the petitioners is that one of the main grounds of rejection of the impugned Exts.P24 and 25 proceedings is that the original suit filed by the 6^th respondent is even now pending. It is pointed out that the said factual assumption made by the second respondent is factually wrong and erroneous as the said suit was dismissed long ago as per Ext.P15 judgment for nonprosecution of the suit by the plaintiff. Further, repeated attempts made by the 6^th respondent for restoring the suit dismissed for default and the subsequent fate of applications for restoring the applications possess restoration which were consequently dismissed, have all been in fail. Further, the present averment of the petitioners that yet another new application for restoration of the dismissed applications have been filed, is of no avail and that the bonfides of the 6^th respondent is to be appreciated in view of the fact that, she has not chosen to file an appeal before the Appellate Court concerned to challenge the basic decision of the Civil Court as per Ext.P15

¶91

-16-

¶92

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶93

judgment. At any rate, it is stated that both as on the date of issuance of Ext.P23 and P24 and even as if now, the suit stands dismissed and therefore, the ground of rejection that the request cannot be considered due to the pendency of the suit is fault being and without any factual and legal foundation. Further that pendency of civil suits in a case like this, will not bar the plea of mutation and acceptance of basic tax.

¶94

Lastly, it is pointed out that the main ground of rejection in Exts.P23 and P24 is that Ext.P2 sale deed is that petitioner's plea are not acceptable as Ext.P2 sale deed dated 09.11.2010 has been executed after Ext.P14 cancellation deed dated 08.11.2010. It is pointed out that the said ground of rejection raised by the 2^nd respondent is also untenable and unsustainable in law. In that regard, it is pointed out that Ext.P1 power of attorney dated 16.06.2009 has been registered at SRO Njarakkal, the parties are all at Njarakkal and the subject properties are also at Njarakkal. Whereas Ext.P14 cancellation deed dated 08.11.2010 has been registered at the residence of R6 at Ernakulam and registered through the SRO Ernakulam. Hence it is stated that there is

¶95

-17-

¶96

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶97

absolutely no chance for getting any knowledge or information or notice by R4 about the revocation of power of attorney said to have been effected by R6 at the time when R4 had executed Ext.P2 sale deed in favour of R5 on 09.11.2010. The petitioners would point out that the provisions relating to revocation of power of attorney for agency is adumbrated in chapter X of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and section 201 of the said Act deals with the termination of agency and the fact scenario in this case would be regulated by the provisions contained in Section 208 as to the time when the termination for revocation is takes ahead as to agent as to the 3^rd parties. Section 208 and illustration (a) thereunder reads as follows:

¶98

“208. When the termination of agent's authority

¶99

takes effect as to agent, and as to third persons.- The termination of the authority of an agent does not, so far as regards the agent, take effect before it becomes known to him, or so far as regards third persons, before it becomes known to him.

¶100

Illustrations

¶101

(a) A directs B to sell goods for hi, and agrees to give B five per cent. Commission on the price fetched by the goods. A afterwards by letter, revokes B's authority. B after the letter is sent, but before he receives it, sells the goods for 100 rupees.

¶102

-18-

¶103

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶104

The sale is binding on A, and B is entitled to five rupees as his commission.”

¶105

On the basis of the provisions contained in Section 208 of the Indian Contract Act and illustration (a) appended thereto, it is urged by the petitioners that there is absolutely no chance for R4 to get even remotely any knowledge, information or notice about the revocation of the power of attorney said to have been effected by R6, at the time when R4 had executed Ext.P2 sale deed the next day in favour of R5. Hence, it is further pointed that the extend the vague averment of the 4^th respondent that notice was given, no material particulars or no details of documents are produced in support of such a faint plea, which is only to be rejected.

¶106

As submitted earlier, the 6^th respondent has also made various contentions as contained in the counter affidavit of the party. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that as there is serious contest between the private disputants and as the issues are raised not merely as between the official authority concerned and the parties seeking mutation, it is only in the interest of justice that the matter is relegated to the Appellate authority concerned and so that this Court

¶107

-19-

¶108

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶109

need to examine the matter on merits, only after such a considered decision is rendered by the Appellate authority.

¶110

Rule 18(i) of the Transfer of Registry Rules envisages that where the original authority was decided on the application of mutation is an Officer of the rank of Tahsildar, then the Appellate authority is the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, Rule 19 of the said rules clearly mandates that it shall be open to the District Collector if sufficient grounds exist to transfer a Transfer of Registry Appeal Case pending before a Tahsildar or Revenue Divisional Officer in his district to the file of his Personal Assistant for disposal himself. In view of the nature of the issues raised, this Court is of the view that it is to be better that the matter is relegated to the 7^th respondent-District Collector so as to exercise the power of the Appellate authority, instead of the Revenue Divisional Officer. None of the parties including the petitioners and the respondents have any objection to the said course of action proposed by the Court. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioners may file an appeal before the 7^th respondent-District Collector so as to impugn the validity and correctness of Exts.P23 and P24 orders, without much delay, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of

¶111

-20-

¶112

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶113

a copy of the judgment. The said appeal may also be accompanied by a formal application of condoning the delay. This Court has specifically queried to the learned counsel appearing for R6 as to whether the said party has any objection in condonation of any delay in that regard so as to effectuate the consideration of the said appeal on merits. Learned counsel appearing for R6, on the basis of instructions, has fairly submitted that R6 has no objection in that regard. Moreover, it is seen that the impugned Exts.P23 and 24 decisions have been rendered on 25.09.2018 and the present Writ Petition (Civil) has been filed before this Court on 15.10.2018. The period of limitation for filing an appeal is 30 days as commencing from Rule 18(i) of the Transfer of Registry Rules. Therefore, the petitioners have challenged the legality and correctness of the impugned orders even before the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal. Hence, it is ordered that the period from 15.10.2018 upto a period of two weeks from the date notified from the certified copy of this judgment will stand excluded for the purpose of adverting the period of limitation in filing the appeal, by importing the principles discernible from Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Hence, it is ordered that, if an appeal is filed by the petitioners

¶114

-21-

¶115

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶116

within the aforesaid period, then the 7^th respondent-District Collector should consider the said appeal on merits. The 7^th respondent may, without any further delay, issue notice of hearing to the petitioners and the 6^th respondent herein. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners opposes to make to array as respondents in the said appeal not only R6 herein, but also R4 and R5. Advance copies of the said appeals should be served by the petitioners through their counsel to the learned Advocates appearing for R4, R5 and R6 so as to safe from the trial. The 7^th respondent may issue notice of hearing to all the parties concerned and may permit the parties to file the written submission in the matter. If the 7^th respondent is calling for any report from the subordinate revenue officials concerned, he may do so, but copy of any such report should also be given to the petitioners and the private respondents in advance so as to equip them to make their respective submissions to contest the matter. Thereafter an opportunity of personal hearing should be granted by the 7^th respondent to the petitioners and contestant respondents mentioned herein above through their authorised representatives or counsels if they so

¶117

-22-

¶118

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶119

engaged and then should render a considered decision in the matter. The 7^th respondent should advert to the various contentions of the parties, more particularly, the above said specific contentions of the petitioners and the 6^th respondent as mentioned herein above and should render a considered decision in the matter, without much delay, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment.

¶120

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

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS

JUDGE

nkr

-23-

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶127

APPENDIX

¶128

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶129

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY 6TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO.61/IV/09 DATED 16.9.09 OF NJARACKAL SRO.

¶130

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED EXECUTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT ON THE BASIS OF EXHIBIT P1 IN FAVOUR OF 5TH RESPONDENT ON 9.11.10 BEARING NO.2275/2010 OF NJARACKAL SRO.

¶131

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO.5031637 DATED 22.10.13 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, NJARACKAL TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶132

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED BEARING NO.374 DATED 24.2.16 EXECUTED BY 5TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE IST PETITIONER.

¶133

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED BEARING NO.383 DATED 24.2.16 EXECUTED BY 5TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶134

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY IST PETITIONER FOR CHANGE OF REGISTRY OF HIS PROPERTY BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 29.4.16.

¶135

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY 2ND PETITINOER FOR CHANGE OF REGISTRY OF HIS PROPERTY BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 29.4.16.

¶136

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC 11842/16 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 29.3.16.

¶137

-24-

¶138

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶139

EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER ON 4.10.16 BEARING NO.S1-6695/16(1).
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER ON 28.10.16 BEARING NO.S1-6595/16.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 28.10.16 BEARING NO.S1-6596/16.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 106/11 DATED 13.1.11 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF CANCELLATION DEED EXECUTED BY 6TH RESPONDENT ON 8.11.10 BEARING NO.680/IV/2010 CANCELLING EXHIBIT P1 POWER OF ATTORNEY.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OS 106/11 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI DATED 5.9.13.
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF I.A.36/16 IN OS 106/11 FILED BY 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI ON 29.1.16.
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA 36/16 IN OS 106/11 DATED 1.6.17.
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA 543/17 IN O.S.106/11 DATED 26.9.17 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI.
EXHIBIT P19	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 1.11.2017.

¶140

-25-

¶141

WP(C).No. 33726 of 2018

¶142

EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P19 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶143

EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC 36449/17 DATED 5.6.18 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶144

EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.1081/17 IN I.A.787/17 IN I.A.543/17 IN O.S.106/11 DATED 28.7.18.

¶145

EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF 2ND RESPONDENT IN S1-6595/16 DATED 25.9.18 RELATING TO THE PROPERTY OF THE IST PETITIONER.

¶146

EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF 2ND RESPONDENT IN S1-6595/16 DATED 25.9.18 RELATING TO THE PROPERTY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶147

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶148

EXHIBIT-R6(a) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶149

EXHIBIT-R6(b) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED DATED 8/11/2010

¶150

EXHIBITR6(c) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2275/2010 OF SRO NJARAKKAL EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 9/11/2010

¶151

EXHIBIT-R6(d) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE REVENUE OFFICIALS DATED 3/3/2016.

¶152

EXHIBIT-R6(e)

¶153

TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.11842/2016 DATED 29/3/2016.

Nandanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandanan 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

Pauly George Vs the Tahasildar, Aluva Taluk

Sahadevan.K.K Vs the District Registrar (General)

Ambalath Veettil Chinganath Hamsa Vs Union of India

K.P. Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

Baby Sarojam Vs the State of Kerala

Vasudevan Seetharaman, Vs the National Highways Authority of India