Allowed

Prasanna Kumaran Nair, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jan 2019WP(C)/549/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mutation of a pathway allotted in a partition deed. Court directed the Tahsildar to conduct inquiries and decide the specific applications within six weeks, clarifying that such mutation would not decide the substantive rights pending in suits filed by both parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th Respondent to consider the mutation applications after inquiries and notices within 6 weeks.

Prasanna Kumaran Nair, Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 18TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 549 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

PRASANNA KUMARAN NAIR, AGED 56 YEARS S/O NEELAKANDAPILLA, RESIDING AT PAYYTHRA HOUSE, VALLAMKULAM PADINJARU MURI, ERAVIPERROR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK-689541.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR

¶10

SRI.C.RAMAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689647.

¶14

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA-689101.

¶15

4 TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA,-689541.

¶16

5 VILLAGE OFFICER, ERAVIPEROOR, THIRUVALLA-689541.

¶17

6 RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR @ RAVINDRAN NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS

¶18

S/O NEELAKANDAPILLA, RESIDING AT PAYYTHRA HOUSE, VALLAMKULAM PADINJARU MURI, ERAVIPERROR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK-689541.

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(C).No. 549 of 2019

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2019

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

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

¶29

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 3 and 4 to take appropriate action on Ext.P-4 and P-5 in accordance with law.

¶30

ii) Grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.”

¶31

Heard Sri.M.Narendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing

¶32

for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5. In the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to contesting respondent No.6 will stand dispensed with.

¶33

The petitioner and the 6^th respondent are brothers. It is stated that property having 1 acre 15 cents was partitioned as between the petitioner and the 6^th respondent, whereby 35 cents of lands has been duly allotted to the 6^th respondent and the entire balance extent of 80 cents and virivu thereto, has been allotted to the petitioner as his share. It is further stated that a pathway was also provided in Ext.P-1 partition deed for access to the part of the share allotted to the petitioner in Ext.P-1 and that the said entire extent of 80 cents of

¶34

W.P.(C).549/19 - : 3 :-

¶35

land inclusive of virivu thereto and also inclusive of the said pathway should have been mutated in favour of the petitioner. But that the after mutation of the properties in respect of the share of the petitioner, the respondents concerned have not included the portion of the pathway, which is also allotted to the share of the petitioner, as part of the property mutated in his favour. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents concerned in not including the portion of the pathway, which has been duly allotted as the share of the petitioner in Ext.P-1 partition deed in the properties mutated in his name, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P-4 and P-5 applications before the 4^th respondent Tahsildar for taking steps to ensure that the said extent of pathway shown as part of the the share of the petitioner as per Ext.P-1 deed should also be mutated in favour of the petitioner. But that no effective action is forthcoming from respondents 4 and 5, in spite of the specific directions issued by respondents 2 and 3. It is also pointed out that now suits have been filed both by the petitioner and the 6^th respondent (his brother) in respect of the use of the pathway in question.

¶36

Without getting into the merits of the controversy in any manner, it is ordered that the 4^th respondent Tahsildar will take up

¶37

W.P.(C).549/19 - : 4 :-

¶38

the request made by the petitioner made in Exts.P-4 and P-5 and after conducting due inquiries in the matter with prior notices to the petitioner and the 6^th respondent and after affording reasonable opportunities of being heard to the petitioner and the 6^th respondent, will take a considered decision on the request made by the petitioner in those applications, without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. In this regard it is ordered and clarified that even if the pathway is mutated in favour of the petitioner, that by itself will not in any manner confer any right with the petitioner, which the petitioner does not otherwise have in law, or will take way any right of the 6^th respondent, if it is otherwise available to him and the suits filed by the petitioner and the 6^th respondent will have to be decided untrammeled and uninfluenced in any manner by the mutation in respect of the pathway in question.

¶39

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

¶40

sdk+

¶41

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶42

W.P.(C).549/19 - : 5 :-

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.12/1988 OF SRO, THIRUVALLA

¶46

EXHIBIT	P2 THE TRUE COPY OF 2.4.2016	THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
EXHIBIT	P3 THE TRUE COPY OF NO.277/2018 IN THE CO	THE PLAINT IN O.S. URT OF MUNSIFF THIRUVALLA
EXHIBIT	P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DATED NIL FILED BY T TAHSILDAR	APPLICATION NO.4908/2018 HE PETITIONER BEFORE THE

¶47

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF	APPLICATION DATED 13.7.2018
FILED BY THE PETIT	IONER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR

Prasanna Kumaran Nair, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanna Kumaran Nair, v. State of Kerala

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

Pappa Vs the State of Kerala

Bava.v Vs Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms)

Hussainkutty Haji Vs State of Kerala

Susheela Amma, Vs the Village Officer

Rupen Philip, Vs State of Kerala

Andru Vs the District Collector