Disposed

Susheela Amma, v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC8 Jan 2019WP(C)/383/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners approached the court seeking tax registration for land now validated by civil court judgments. The High Court allowed an application for registry change, directing the Village Officer to consider it with others after granting notice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed to file an application for change of registry under Rule 16 of Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 for the Village Officer to consider.

Susheela Amma, Vs the Village Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 18TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 383 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 SUSHEELA AMMA, W/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, AGED 77 YEARS, RAM NIVAS VEEDU, NEERVARAM, PANAMARAM AMSOM DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶8

2 REENA RAMAKRISHNAN, D/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, AGED 54 YEARS, RAM NIVAS VEEDU, NEERVARAM, PANAMARAM AMSOM DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶9

3 K.PREETHA, D/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEERVARAM, NEERVARAM P.O., PANAMARAM AMSOM, DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶10

4 K.SUDHEER, S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, AGED 52 YEARS, RAM NIVAS VEEDU, NEERVARAM, P.O.NEERVARAM, PANAMARAM AMSOM, DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, P.O.PANAMARAM, WAYANAD DISTRICT- 670721.

¶14

2 TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT- 670645.

¶15

3 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

¶16

4 DINESH BABU, GANAPATHIKOLLIYIL, NEERVARAM P.O., KUPPATHODU AMSOM, DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT- 670721.

¶17

5 SUDHEESH, GANAPATHIKOLLIYIL, NEERVARAM P.O., KUPPATHODU AMSOM, DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT- 670721.

¶18

6 VIJITHA, GANAPATHIKOLLIYIL, NEERVARAM P.O., KUPPATHODU AMSOM, DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT- 670721.

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SRI.M.R.DHANIL, GOVT.PLEADER

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶22

08.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶24

W.P.(C)No.383 of 2019

¶25

Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2019

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows.

¶28

i. issue notice to the respondents and; ii. issue a writ of mandamus or suitable writ or order to accept land tax for C schedule property in Ext.P1 from 3^rd and 4^th petitioner acting on Ext.P4 request, under Land Tax Act. iii. Issue such other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant. ”

¶29

Heard Sri.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for

¶30

the petitioners and Sri.M.R.Dhanil, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 1 to 3. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to contesting respondents 4 to 6 will stand dispensed with.

¶31

Shorn of all the details of the facts of this case it can be seen that what was basically under challenge in Ext.P-5 WP(C).No.2056 of 2012 filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and later continued to be prosecuted by them after the death of the predecessor, was the legality and correctness of the impugned order therein (Ext.P-8 therein) rendered by the competent authority on the application of the contesting respondent No.4 therein Lakshmi ( predecessor-in-interest of

¶32

W.P.(C).No.383/2019

¶33

..4..

¶34

contesting respondents 4 to 6 herein) for restoration of the land in question under the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999. This Court in Ext.P-5 judgment after elaborate consideration of various factual issues have found that the very case set up by the contesting respondent No.4 therein was that the property was only granted on oral lease basis to the predecessorin-interest of the petitioners herein and that later the said R-4 could get back the possession of said property. Whereas the case set up by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein was to effect that they have secured lawful title in respect of the property in question but that the contesting respondent therein (predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents herein) had unlawfully trespassed and thus secured illegal possession of the said property and that they have filed civil suits seeking injunction and recovery of the possession of the said property etc.

¶35

Having regard to the said factual matters canvassed by

¶36

both sides this Court held in Ext.P-5 judgment that it is admitted

¶37

..5..

¶38

W.P.(C).No.383/2019

¶39

on both sides that the property in question was already in possession of the contesting respondent therein and that even the case set up by the respondent therein was that she had given the property on oral lease basis to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners therein and had later got back its possession. So it was held by this Court in Ext.P-5 judgment that therefore the application submitted by her for restoration of the property in terms of the provisions contained in Section 5 of the abovesaid Act has become practically redundant for all purposes except the fact finding made in impugned Ext.P-8 therein that she had got back the possession of the said property. Accordingly this Court in Ext.P-5 judgment had set aside the impugned Ext.P-8 order therein except on the limited fact finding made therein regarding the possession of the contesting respondent therein and had relegated the parties to agitate their rights and remedies before the civil court in the said pending civil proceedings. The incidental issue raised in Ext.P-6 WP(C).No.18267 of 2012 was regarding the issue as to acceptance of basic land tax from the predecessor-in-

¶40

..6..

¶41

W.P.(C).No.383/2019

¶42

interest of the petitioners for the abovesaid property in question, for which an application as per Ext.P-3 therein was pending before the 1^st respondent therein (Village Officer, concerned) . This Court held in Ext.P-6 judgment that the directions and orders already made in Ext.P-5 judgment to regulate Ext.P-6 writ proceedings and further ordered that the application submitted by the predecessorin-interest of the petitioners as per Ext.P-3 therein for acceptance of basic land tax for the property in question will be considered by the 1^st respondent therein after the civil court renders its verdict in the civil suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners etc.

¶43

Now it is submitted by Sri.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the said civil suits filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners have now been rendered fully in favour of them as evident from Ext.P-3 common judgment dated 30.10.2018 in O.S.No.140 of 2013 & O.S.No.48 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery, the decrees of which have been rendered as per Exts.P-1 & P-2. Accordingly it is submitted

¶44

..7..

¶45

W.P.(C).No.383/2019

¶46

by Sri.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in view of the concluded judgment in Exts.P-5 & P-6 more particularly Ext.P-6, the 1^st respondent Village Officer is bound to take a decision on the request made by the petitioners for acceptance of basic land tax of the property in question in the light of the verdict of the civil court in Exts.P-1 to P-3 and that despite the petitioners having made a fresh request as per Ext.P-4 herein for acceptance of basic land tax in the light of Exts.P-1 to P-3 and in view of the concluded judgment in Ext.P-6, the 1^st respondent Village Officer is not taking any action on the said request.

¶47

Sri.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit on the basis of instructions of his parties that the petitioners have now been advised that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, the mutation granting authority like the 1^st respondent Village Officer is bound to revise the mutation granted on previous occasions and such change of mutation is bound to be considered by the said officer in the light of the subsequent verdicts of the civil

¶48

W.P.(C).No.383/2019

¶49

..8..

¶50

courts concerned and that for the sake of procedural completeness the petitioners will file a separate application under Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules for change of registry in respect of subject property which is now said to be in the name of the predecessor-ininterest of the contesting respondents to the names of the petitioners in view of the concluded directions issued by this Court in Ext.P-6 judgment and in the light of the civil court verdicts as referred to in Exts.P-1 to P-3. And that this Court may direct the 1^st respondent Village Officer to consider such application along with the request made in Ext.P-4 herein and in Ext.P-3 application referred to in Ext.P-6 judgment after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents 4 to 6. The said request made by Sri.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is appears to be fair and reasonable in as much as the specific directions sought for by him from this Court is that an appropriate decision is to be rendered by the 1^st respondent after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard not only to the petitioners but also to the contesting respondents 4 to 6.

¶51

Accordingly it is ordered that the petitioners will be at liberty to file a proper application as conceived in Rule 16 of the Transfer

¶52

W.P.(C).No.383/2019

¶53

..9..

¶54

of Registry Rules, 1966 for change of registry in respect of the subject property from the name of predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents to the names of the petitioners in view of the civil court verdict as reflected in Exts.P-1 to P-3 and if such application is filed then the 1^st respondent Village Officer will consider the said application as well as Ext.P-3 application referred to in Ext.P-6 judgment, and Ext.P-4 herein but after due notice to the petitioners and contesting respondents 4 to 6 and will take an appropriate decision in the light of the specific directions issued by this Court already in Exts. P-5 and P-6 judgments and in view of the verdict of civil court as reflected in Exts.P-1 to P-3 without much delay preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of submission of said application along with certified copy of this judgment.

¶55

It is further ordered that the Registry will forward copies of this judgment to contesting respondents 4 to 6 at the cost of the petitioner for necessary information.

¶56

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

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

MMG

W.P.(C).No.383/2019

..10..

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶64

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 30.10.2018 OF SUB JUDGE, SULTHAN BATHERY IN O.S.NO.140/2013.

¶65

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 30.10.2018 OF SUB JUDGE, SULTHAN BATHERY IN O.S.NO.48/2009.

¶66

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.140/2013 AND O.S.NO.48/2009 BEFORE THE SUB JUDGE, SULTHAN BATHERY DATED 30.10.2018.

¶67

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 06.12.2018 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶68

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)NO.2056/2012 DATED 29.06.2018.

¶69

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)NO.18267/2012 DATED 29.06.2018.

Susheela Amma, v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susheela Amma, v. the Village Officer

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

Pappa Vs the State of Kerala

Bava.v Vs Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms)

Hussainkutty Haji Vs State of Kerala

Prasanna Kumaran Nair, Vs State of Kerala

Rupen Philip, Vs State of Kerala

Andru Vs the District Collector