Dismissed

State of Kerala, v. Mary Jacob

Kerala HC18 Oct 2019RP/672/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition challenging a judgment that directed revenue authorities to effect mutation and change of registry. The Court rejected the review, upholding the earlier finding that the land is private property and not Government land, directing authorities to process the mutation application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Revenue authorities to consider plaintiff's mutation application within 2 months without reference to Government land contention.

State of Kerala, Vs Mary Jacob — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 26TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

RP.No.672 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 5381/2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5381/2018(W) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

¶9

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM- 682001.

¶10

3 THE TAHSILDAR,

¶11

KOCHI, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI- 682001.

¶12

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE, EDAVANAKKAD- 682507.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 MARY JACOB, AGED 59 YEARS W/O.JACOB, MAYYATTIL HOUSE, PPS ROAD, NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM- 682505.

¶16

2 SRI.RAVEENDRAN, NIKATHUTHARA, EDAVANAKKAD- 682507.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.10.2019, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).730/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

RP.No.672 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 5381/2018

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Dated this the 18th day of October 2019

¶23

This Review Petition has been filed seeking review of judgment dated 19/09/2019 on the ground that the land in question is Government land and the direction to effect mutation in favour of the writ petitioner/ 1^st respondent in the RP and to accept basic tax was not warranted in the facts of the case.

¶24

Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Review Petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the land is recorded as Government Puramboke in the Basic Tax Register. It is further stated that a re-survey of the property in question was finalized and decided on 25/04/1999. It is stated that in the re-survey also, the property in question is shown as Government Puramboke land of the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe department. It is stated that no objection had been raised to the re-survey report. It is therefore contended that the direction to effect mutation and to accept Basic Tax is completely unsustainable.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent would contend that this Court has considered the issue with regard to the

¶26

RP.No.672 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 5381/2018

¶27

¶28

ownership of the land and had by Ext.P9 judgment in an earlier round of litigation held that Ext.P2 order of the Board of Revenue had categorically found that the land in question was not Government land. On the said basis, the issue was directed to be considered by the Tahasildar. It was thereafter that Ext.P10 proceedings have been issued. Ext.P10 was under challenge in writ petition No. 5381 of 2018.

¶29

A counter affidavit had been placed on record in that writ petition. It was after considering the contentions raised in the counter affidavit as also in the light of the findings in Ext.P2, that the judgment under review had been rendered. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would also contend that the grounds raised in the Review Petition and the documents produced were not raised or produced along with the counter affidavit in the writ petition and as such the same cannot be pressed into service in support of an application for review.

¶30

I have considered the contentions advanced. The judgment under review specifically takes note of the contentions of the parties. It was found that Ext.P2 order passed by the Board of Revenue as early as in 1970 had categorically held that the land in question was not Government land. The said finding was rendered in a proceedings issued under Land

¶31

RP.No.672 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 5381/2018

¶32

¶33

Conservancy Act. The said order was an appealable order. However, it appears that no appeal had been preferred against the same and the same was allowed to become final. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner/1^st respondent had submitted that on the basis of Ext.P2, Sri. Ramankutty continued in possession of the property and was also paying tax. Thereafter, by Ext.P1 sale deed dated 22/08/1990, the property was purchased by the writ petitioner. It was in the above circumstances, that the writ petitioner had sought transfer of Registry in respect of the said property. By Ext.P9 judgment, this Court took note of Ext.P2 and the finding rendered therein that the property in question was not Government land. The Tahasildar was directed to consider the request of the writ petitioner for change of Registry on the basis of the said finding. However, in Ext.P10, the Tahasildar held that the transfer of title to Ramankutty was not established and therefore the writ petitioner could not claim any title to the property. This was the order under challenge.

¶34

Taking note of the contentions raised in the writ petition as also in the counter affidavit, and specifically taking note of Ext.P2 order by which the Board of Revenue had held that the land in question is not Government land, this Court had come to the conclusion that the writ

¶35

RP.No.672 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 5381/2018

¶36

¶37

petitioner was entitled to change of Registry in her name. The finding in Ext.P10 that the property is Government land was found to be unsustainable

¶38

and was therefore set aside. The Revenue authorities were directed to consider the application for mutation on the strength of title without reference to the contention that the property is Government land.

¶39

In view of the discussion above, I am of the opinion that no sufficient grounds have been raised for a review of the judgment. In the light of the finding in Ext.P2, the competent among the Review Petitioners are duty bound to take up the application preferred by the writ petitioner for mutation and to pass orders on the same without reference to the contention that the property is a Government land. Appropriate action shall be taken as directed in this order within a period of 2 months.

¶40

This Review Petition is thus ordered.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶43

Nsd//true copy// PA to Judge

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

RP.No.672 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 5381/2018

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF RP 672/2019

¶48

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶49

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER OF EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE RELATING TO THE PROPERTY IN RESURVEY NO.7/10. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER OF EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE DENOTING COMPLETING OF SURVEY IN 1994.

¶50

ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25.10.2014 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAVANAKKAD.

State of Kerala, v. Mary Jacob

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala, v. Mary Jacob

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

Ranki.R., Vs P.Saithalavi

Sashidharan Thampuran, Vs the Palace Administration Board and Ors.

Joseph Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Joe Antony Vs Anu R.S.

Maneesha M.S. Vs the Screening Committee for Verification

Ajith Kumar Vs the Secretary