Allowed

C.L.Joseph v. Tahsildar, Peerumedu Taluk

Kerala HC22 Oct 2019WP(C)/2004/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order rejecting a genuineness certificate application. It directed the Tahsildar to reconsider the petition filed by the petitioner and conduct a site inspection before passing appropriate orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P9 set aside and direction to 1st respondent to take up Ext.P6 application, consider after site inspection and hearing, within two months.

C.L.Joseph Vs Tahsildar, Peerumedu Taluk — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 30TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.2004 OF 2013(A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

C.L.JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.C.J.LUKA, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶9

SMT.REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 TAHSILDAR, PEERUMEDU TALUK, TALUK OFFICE-PEERUMEDU, PEERUMEDU.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶12

2 TALUK SURVEYOR, PEERUMEDU TALUK,TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU, PEERUMEDU.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶13

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, KOKKAYAR VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICEKOKKAYAR VILLAGE, KOKKAYAR.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶14

R1-3 SRI.RON BASTIAN, GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.2004 OF 2013(A)

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 22^nd day of October, 2019

¶20

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext. P9 order of rejection of genuineness certificate applied for by the petitioner in Ext. P6 application.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Ext.P6, the petitioner had sought only a certificate of genuineness in respect of the property mutated to the petitioner's name under Thandaper No. 5229 of Kokkayar village. It is stated that the petitioner had produced document No. 3374/07 of the Peerumedu Sub Registrar's office, which is produced as Ext. P1. It is submitted that the petitioner had only sought for genuineness certificate in respect of the property covered by Ext. P1, in respect of which location plan and possession certificate have also been duly issued. It is stated that the property is situated in Sy. No. 214/1-11 of Kokkayar village. However, it is submitted that by Ext. P9, application of the petitioner has been rejected on the

¶22

WP(C).No.2004 OF 2013(A)

¶23

¶24

ground that the petitioner is in possession of the property in Survey No. 215, which is surrendered excess land. It is stated in Ext. P9 that on the basis of Ext. P1 document the petitioner has encroached into the property in Survey No. 215.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on Exts. P7 and P10 documents to show that the petitioner is in possession of the property covered by Ext. P1 and that Ext. P9 had been issued only on the basis of documents available in the office without conducting any site inspection. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case a site inspection is conducted into the property of the petitioner in survey No. 214/111 the factual aspects will be clear.

¶26

No counter affidavit has been placed on record in spite of passage of more than six years. I am of the opinion that since the petitioner had produced Ext P7 report of the Village Officer as well as the documents, by which he claims title, the possession certificate and tax receipts of the property, Ext.P6 application

¶27

WP(C).No.2004 OF 2013(A)

¶28

¶29

submitted by him requires consideration, after an appropriate site inspection.

¶30

In the above view of the matter, Ext. P9 is set aside. There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to take up Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner and to consider the same in accordance with law. Appropriate orders on Ext.P6 shall be passed after hearing the petitioner and after conducting a site inspection. Orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶31

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

kmd

WP(C).No.2004 OF 2013(A)

¶37

¶38

APPENDIXPETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1	THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3374/07 OF THE SRO,
	PEERUMEDU IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.

¶40

EXHIBIT P2	THE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 05/02/2008 SHOWING
	REMITTANCE OF TAX IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.

¶41

EXHIBIT P3	THE COPY OF 31/10/2008	THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	THE COPY OF RESPONDENT	THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE 3RD DATED 11/02/2009.
EXHIBIT P5	THE SURVEY RESPONDENT	PLAN OF THE PROPERTY PREPARED BY THE 3RD ON 17/11/08.
EXHIBIT P6	THE COPY OF SUBMITTED B CERTIFICATE	THE APPLICATION DATED 12/10/2011 Y THE PETITIONER FOR GENUINENESS .
EXHIBIT P6 A	THE COPY OF SUBMITTED B CERTIFICATE	THE APPLICATION DATED 12/10/2011 Y THE PETITIONER FOR GENUINENESS .
EXHIBIT P7	THE PHOTOCO OF THE REPO (WHICH THE INFORMATION	PY OF THE TYPED COPY ALONG WITH THE COPY RT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 21/01/2012 PETITIONER OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO ACT)
EXHIBIT P8	THE COPY OF BY THE 1ST THE ATTESTE	THE COMMUNICATION DATED 09/02/2012 ISSUED RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER TO PRODUCE D COPIES OF THE PRIOR DEEDS.
EXHIBIT P8A	THE COPY OF BY THE 1ST PRODUCE THE	THE COMMUNICATION DATED 07/03/2012 ISSUED RESPONDENT-TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER TO ATTESTED COPIES OF THE DEEDS AND COPIES.
EXHIBIT P9	THE TRUE CO 06/09/2012 THE PETITIO	PY OF THE ORDER OF REJECTION DATED ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT-TAHSILDAR TO NER.
EXHIBIT P10	THE TRUE CO ISSUED BY T PEERUMEDU T	PY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19/10/2012 HE PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER, TALUK OFFICE, O THE PETITIONER.

C.L.Joseph v. Tahsildar, Peerumedu Taluk

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.L.Joseph v. Tahsildar, Peerumedu Taluk

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

Joe Antony Vs Anu R.S.

Maneesha M.S. Vs the Screening Committee for Verification

State of Kerala, Vs Mary Jacob

Seema Vs G.v.Nageshwar Rao

M.G.Vinodan, Vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Thankam P.K. Vs the Accountant General of Kerala