Dismissed

Mohammed Alias Kunhappu v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jan 2021WP(C)/297/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the Village Officer's inaction on a representation regarding their land, seeking a stay on revenue proceedings pending a civil suit. The Court found no cause of action as no transfer of registry application was filed in the underlying suit, leading to the dismissal of the writ.

What did the court decide?

Dismissing the writ petition as the petitioners had no cause of action due to the absence of a transfer of registry application in the underlying civil suit.

Mohammed Alias Kunhappu Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.297 OF 2021(J)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 MOHAMMED ALIAS KUNHAPPU AGED 73 YEARS S/O. CHEKKU HAJI, PULIYANKODATH, KUTTIPURAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O.KUTTIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2 KADHIJA, W/O. MOHAMMED ALIAS KUNHAPPU, TIRUR TALUK, KUTTIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, TIRUR-676101.

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679571.

¶14

4 SANDEEP, S/O.PARVATHI DAS, VYLAPPILLY HOUSE, SHORNUR, CHUDUVALATHUR P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679121.

¶15

ADDL R5 TAHSILDAR(LAND REVENUE)

¶16

. TALUK OFFICE, TIRUR-676101. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA 1/2021 DATED 1201-2021).

¶17

-2-

¶18

WP(C).No.297 OF 2021(J)

¶19

R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.DEVESH R1 TO 3 BY SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY -SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

-3-

¶22

WP(C).No.297 OF 2021(J)

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent Village Officer to consider and take decision on Ext.P4 representation dated 31.12.2020. The petitioners have also sought for an order directing respondents 2 and 3 not to initiate any action on their property either by making any change in the revenue records or by issuing possession certificate in respect of their property, pending disposal of the application for restoration of O.S.No.102 of 2014 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Tirur, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 13.03.2020. Going by the averments in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the writ petition, the 1^st petitioner is the owner of 3 items of property, namely, 8.92 Ares in Re.Sy.No.47/5 of Tirur Taluk, Kuttipuram Amsom; 22.7 Ares in Re.Sy.No.47/3 and 20 cents in Re.Sy.No.47/5 of Tirur Taluk, Kuttipuram Amsom; and 67 cents in Re.Sy.No.47/3 and 45/2 of Tirur Taluk, Kuttipuram Amsom and the 2^nd petitioner is the owner of 16 cents in Re.Sy.No.47/3, 5 of Tirur Taluk, Kittipuram Amsom.

¶25

On 06.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for

¶26

-4-

¶27

WP(C).No.297 OF 2021(J)

¶28

admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. This Court issued urgent notice on admission by special messenger to the 4^th respondent. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the 3^rd respondent.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and also the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶30

The apprehension of the petitioner is that during the pendency of the application made in O.S.No.102 of 2014 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Tirur, for restoration, the 4^th respondent is attempting to obtain changes in revenue records to get possession certificate in respect of the plaint schedule property.

¶31

The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions from the additional 5^th respondent Tahsildar (Land Records), would submit that no such application is made by the mother of the 4^th respondent and the only application made by her in the year 2012 was one for accepting land tax.

¶32

The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent would

¶33

-5-

¶34

WP(C).No.297 OF 2021(J)

¶35

point out that in O.S.No.102 of 2014 filed before the Munsiff's Court, Tirur seeking declaration of the right over the plaint schedule property, the petitioners could not secure an interim order. The learned counsel would also point out that, the other legal heirs of the mother of the 4^th respondent, namely, Jagadeep and Mini, are not made parties to this writ petition.

¶36

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that since no application is moved for transfer of registry in respect of the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.102 of 2014 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Tirur, either by late Parvathi Das or her legal heirs, the petitioners have no cause of action for moving this writ petition, seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

¶37

In such circumstances, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶40

AV/20/01

¶41

-6-

¶42

WP(C).No.297 OF 2021(J)

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.34577/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 6.7.2020.

¶46

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.102/2014 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR DATED 13.3.2020.

¶47

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF I.A.21/2020 IN O.S.102/2014. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 31.12.2020.

Mohammed Alias Kunhappu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Alias Kunhappu v. the 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

P.P.Subramanian Vs State of Kerala

Sri Varadaraja Venkatramana Temple Vs State of Kerala

Jacob Mathew, Vs Special Tahsildar

Shahnas K.T. Vs the Special Thahsildar (Lr)

Alavi Thottumugath, Vs the Special Thahsildar (Lr)

Muhammed Abdurahiman Vs the Special Thahsildar (Lr)