Allowed

Vineeth Vishnu v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jun 2018WP(C)/6151/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that a 2015 government notification imposing a 25-year transfer prohibition on Lakh house colony properties does not apply retrospectively to pattas issued in 1995 under an existing 10-year restriction. The court quashed the orders refusing mutation relief to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the orders refusing mutation and directed the respondent to reconsider the application within two months.

Vineeth Vishnu Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 6151 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

VINEETH VISHNU, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. VISHNU, THADATHIPARAMBIL, NATAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 023.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN SRI.P.RAJEEV (KUZHIKKADAN) SRI.RAKESH P.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 001.

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 001.

¶13

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

21.06.2018

¶17

WP(C).No. 6151 of 2018 (T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 398/17 OF SRO THALAYOLAPARAMBU DATED 17.03.2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF RAVI DATED 03.04.1995. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 16.05.1994. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO. 1107 OF 2014 OF SRO THALAYOLAPARAMBU DATED 05.06.2014. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17.12.2016. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY R3. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DATED 30.06.2015. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.01.2018. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 26511 OF 2015. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

21.06.2018

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(C) No.6151 of 2018

¶29

======================== Dated this the 19^th day of June 2018

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P6 order dated 29.7.2017, issued by the 3^rd respondent refusing mutation of the property sought for by the petitioner on the ground that as per Government Order dated 30.6.2015, such properties granted to the beneficiaries on account of the Lakh house colony (Laksham Veedu colony) cannot be transferred for a period of 25 years. The case projected by the petitioner is that, petitioner is given pattayam as per Ext.P2 dated 3.4.1995 on which date a restriction is imposed is not to transfer a property for a period of 10 years, evident from Ext.P3. It is also the case of the petitioner is that, the original allottee has assigned the property to his son as per a settlement deed and from the said person alone, petitioner has purchased the property and therefore, the restriction imposed by issuing a notification in the year 2015, not to transfer the property for a period of 25 years, not applicable to the pattas issued during the year 1995. It is thus seeking to quash Exts.P6 and P8 and for other consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed.

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C) No.6151 of 2018

¶34

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶35

The question to be decided revolves around Exts.P6 and P8 orders passed by the primary authority as well as the appellate authority under the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. The sole reason assigned in Ext.P6, is the Government Order dated 30.6.2015, which disables the primary authority to carry out the mutation. I have gone extensively through Ext.P7 Government order, from which, what I could gather is that, it is a notification dated 30.6.2015, having a prospective impact on the conditions recited to there under.

¶36

Here is a case where the property was purchased from the son of the original allottee. Moreover Ext.P2 pattayam is issued in the year 1995 and as per Ext.P3, condition existing at that point of time, was not to transfer the property for a period of 10 years to a third person. The first transfer made by the original allottee in favour of his son cannot be treated to be a third party transfer. On going through the recital made in Ext.P7, it is evident that the Government indents to protect such properties prospectively and that too by making certain conditions for granting permission to transfer under compelling circumstances.

¶37

Taking into account all these aspects, I am of the

¶38

W.P.(C) No.6151 of 2018

¶39

¶40

considered opinion that Exts.P6 and P8 orders passed by the primary as well as the appellate authority are liable to be interfered with, being arbitrary and illegal and without taking not of the issuance of the patta and conditions existing at that point of time. Therefore, I quash Exts.P6 and P8 and direct the third respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner, taking into account the pattyam issued in the year 1995, the conditions prevailing with respect to the transfer at that point of time vis-a-vis, Ext.P7 Government notification issued during the year 2015 and attain finality at the earliest possible time and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing opportunity of participation to the petitioner.

¶41

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶42

Sd/

¶43

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶44

jm/ \ True copy \

¶45

PA to Judge

Vineeth Vishnu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineeth Vishnu v. the 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

Narayana Menon @ Unni Vs K.Mohammad Y Safirulla

C.Raveendran Vs District Collector

Saritha Susan Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Abu Mathew Vs Ajayakumar

Antony C.C Vs Bhasid Bahulaeyan

The Director of Public Instructions Vs the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights