Partly allowed

Abdul Majeed v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC28 Oct 2020WP(C)/22413/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a property owner, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Tahsildar and Village Officer to act on his representation for issuing a record of rights certificate. The Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the representation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within six weeks.

Abdul Majeed Vs the Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.22413 OF 2020(B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABDUL MAJEED AGED 58 YEARS S/O ALIPPU HAJI,CHAKKIKULATHIL HOUSE, THELAKKAD,KARYAVATTOM,PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE TAHSILDAR OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA,PIN-679322.

¶11

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANGADIPURAM VILLAGE OFFICE, ANGADIPURAM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679321.

¶12

SRI KP HARISH SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.22413 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Being aggrieved by the reluctance on the part of the 1st respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of record of rights certificate in accordance with the provision of the Transfer of Registry Rules, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶18

The petitioner states that he along with his sister are the registered owners in title and possession of the property having an extent of 80 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.152/2A of Angadipuram Village. The aforesaid property was purchased by them by Exhibit-P1 Sale Deed. The petitioner contends that he has been remitting basic tax as is evident from Exhibit-P5. For enabling him to create Thandaper Account and for issuance of record of rights, the petitioner herein submitted Exhibit-P4 representation before the 1st respondent. His grievance is that no action has been taken by the 1st respondent. His prayer in this writ petition is to issue directions to the 1st respondent to take up Ext.P4 and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

I have heard Sri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, the learned

¶20

counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government

¶21

WP(C).No.22413 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

Pleader.

¶24

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the

¶25

submissions made across the Bar, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to take up Exhibit-P4 representation

¶26

with notice to the petitioner and take a decision expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶27

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the 1st respondent to ensure compliance.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

¶32

DSV

¶33

WP(C).No.22413 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.5114/2015 OF SRO,PERINTHALMANNA.

¶38

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14-92020 FOR ROR SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶39

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.106/20 DATED 15-10-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1510-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 18-6-2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶40

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶41

NIL

Abdul Majeed v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Majeed v. the Tahsildar

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

Annis Mathew Poovathinkal Vs the Tahsildar (Land Records)

Mini S., Vs Ajith Mathew

K.M.Varghese Vs the Excise Commissioner

Biju.G, Vs Anchal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No 2574

Murukan Vs State of Kerala

Bindu Mathew Vs Assistant Registrar (General) of Co. Operative Societies