Disposed

Sanjay Kumar Pillai, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mattanchery

Kerala HC27 Nov 2018WP(C)/38321/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition alleging mistakes in land mutation records where property extent was wrongly allotted to another person, the High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the pending appeal within two months after affording a hearing to parties and furnishing the Village Officer' report.

What did the court decide?

The Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to dispose of the pending appeal within two months after hearing parties and following necessary formalities.

Sanjay Kumar Pillai, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer… — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 38321 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SANJAY KUMAR PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O LATE E.T.SADASIVAN PILLAI, 7CD YASORAM OJAS, A.K.SHESHADRI ROAD, KOCHI - 682011.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MATTANCHERY, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MATTANCHERY - 682002.

¶11

2 THE TALUK TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, OFFICE OF THE KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 016.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NADAMA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-682 301.

¶13

4 SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.VINAYAGA IYER, KARUTHEDATH MADOM (ARUNDHATHI HOUSE), NEAR ALLIANCE JUNCTION, NADAMA VILLAGE, THEVARKKAVU ROAD, THRIPPUNINTHURA-682 301.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C0No..38321/2018

¶18

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

W.P.(C)No.38321 of 2018

¶21

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2018

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are

¶24

as follows:

¶25

“(i) To issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the first respondent to rectify the mistake in the thandapper registry relting to the 7.688 Ares of property of the petitioner in re-survey 43 in block 258 of Nadama Village, within a short time. (ii) To issue a Writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 or such of them to accept the tax for the entire extend of 7.688 Ares of property, from the petitioner.”

¶26

2. Heard Sri. M.V.S. Nampoothiry, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Government

¶27

pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 3. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this writ petition, notice to contesting respondent No.4 will stand dispensed with.

¶28

3. The petitioner claims to be in absolute ownership, enjoyment and possession of 7.688 Ares

¶29

W.P.(C0No..38321/2018

¶30

¶31

of property in re-survey No.43, Block No.258 of Nadama Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam Revenue District, on the basis of Ext.P1 registered sale deed No.1587/2015 of SRO, Thirppunithura. After registration of the said sale deed, the petitioner secured mutation of the property effected in his name and he has also paid

¶32

land tax for the said property as evident from Exts.P2 and P4 receipts. The thandapper account number has also been duly allotted to the petitioner as evident from Ext.P5. The possession certificate has also been duly issued to the petitioner by the 3^rd respondent Village Officer as per Ext.P3.

¶33

4. The petitioner would further state that,

¶34

in the year 2017, certain mistakes were committed by the 3^rd respondent Village Officer and out of

¶35

the above said total extent of 7.688 Ares, covered by Exts.P1 to P4, an extent 3.49 Ares of property was shown as against the thandapper account of the contesting respondent No.4. The petitioner would

¶36

assert that the 4^th respondent has absolutely no

¶37

W.P.(C0No..38321/2018

¶38

¶39

claim or title and possession in respect of the said extent of 3.49 Ares of property, which according to the petitioner, is part of the total extent of 7.688 Ares of property of the petitioner covered by Exs.P1 to P4. On coming to know the said serious mistake committed by the 3^rd respondent in showing 3.49 Ares of property in the name of the 4^th respondent's thandapper account, the petitioner had filed Ext.P6 appeal dated 20.7.2018 before the 1^st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer. But, the petitioner's grievance is that no further effective action is forthcoming on Ext.P6 appeal dated 20.7.2018. The petitioner would also state that the 3^rd respondent Village Officer has also submitted Ext.P7 report dated 31.7.2018, wherein it is categorically admitted that the mutation effected in the name of the 4^th respondent is a mistake and also that there is no file relating to that transfer. But, that, even after submission of Ext.P7 report, no effective action is forthcoming on Ext.P6 appeal, which is now pending before the 1^st respondent RDO

¶40

W.P.(C0No..38321/2018

¶41

¶42

etc. It is in the light of these factual

¶43

averments, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the aforementioned prayers.

¶44

5. After having heard the learned counsel

¶45

appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader and taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances as disclosed in this writ petition, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 1^st respondent RDO will take up for consideration Ext.P6 appeal without any further delay and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and contesting respondent No.4 and after following the necessary formalities, if any,

¶46

in that regard, will take a considered decision on Ext.P6 appeal without much delay. In the above said process, in case the 1^st respondent RDO is conducting any further enquiries in the matter, through any competent revenue officials concerned, then copies of such report should also be given to

¶47

the petitioner and 4^th respondent. So also, it shall be ensured that the copy of Ext.P7 report is

¶48

W.P.(C0No..38321/2018

¶49

¶50

also furnished to the 4^th respondent. Thereafter,

¶51

the 1^st respondent will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard as aforestated to the petitioner and the 4^th respondent and then will render a final decision in the matter on Ext.P6 appeal. The entire process in this regard should be duly completed by the 1^st respondent without much delay preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶52

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

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶55

acd

¶56

W.P.(C0No..38321/2018

¶57

¶58

APPENDIX

¶59

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1587/15. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.09.2015 WHICH RELATES TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY OF 7.688 ARES. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.06.2016. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPPER ACCOUNT KEPT IN NADAMA VILLAGE EVIDENCING THE TRANSFER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION/APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MATTANCHERY DATED 20.07.2018. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 31.07.2018 PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER AND FORWARDED TO THE TALUK TAHSILDHAR.

¶61

TRUE COPY

¶62

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Sanjay Kumar Pillai, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mattanchery

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Pillai, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mattanchery

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.G. Granites Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Vijosh Vs the State of Kerala

Ramesh Kumaran N Vs the Secretary,Thenhipalam Grama Panchayat

Abdul Jaleel Vs the Union of India

N.Kamalam Vs District Collector

George Varghese Vs State of Kerala