Remanded

T. Mohanan Pillai, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2022WP(C)/1180/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala in a writ petition set aside a Tahsildar's order rejecting a transfer of land registry application due to unclear boundaries. The court directed the Tahsildar to conduct a formal enquiry into allegations of clandestine transfers to third parties and to finalize the registry transfer within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Ext.P7 order set aside; respondent directed to conduct an enquiry into alleged unlawful transfers and complete it within two months.

T. Mohanan Pillai, Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1180 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T. MOHANAN PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS S/O.LATE THANKAPPAN PILLAI, KIZHAKKADATHU THEKKETHIL, VENGA P.O., SASTHAMCOTTAH, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADVS. B.MOHANLAL P.S.PREETHA SHINE N.S KARTHIK J SEKHAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LINES, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM-691 013.

¶12

3 THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHOOR, KUNNATHOOR P.O., KOLLAM-690 540.

¶13

4 THE TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHOOR, KUNNATHOOR P.O., KOLLAM690 540.

¶14

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM-690 519.

¶15

6 VIJAYAN PILLAI, S/O.SANKARA PILLAI, OOPPANVILA VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, VENGA MURI, VENGA P.O., MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 521.

¶16

SMT. MABLE .C .KURIAN SR.G.P

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 1180 OF 2022 2

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner impugns Ext.P7 order of the 4^th

¶21

respondent – Tahsildar (Land Records), through which his application for transfer of Registry of the

¶22

property, comprised of 81 sq. mts in Resurvey No.580/10, has been rejected saying that the

¶23

boundaries of the said property are not clear. The petitioner asserts that Ext.P7 is in blatant contravention of the directions of this Court in

¶24

Ext.P5 judgment and therefore, seeks that same be set aside and the Tahsildar (LR) be directed to effect transfer of Registry of the property in question in his favour, without any further delay.

¶25

I have heard Shri.B.Mohanlal - learned counsel

¶26

appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Mable C.Kurian - learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶28

vehemently asserted that, even going by the records produced as Exts.P8 and P9, the boundaries of the

¶29

WP(C) NO. 1180 OF 2022 3

¶30

property are well delineated and that, in fact, the

¶31

truth is that said property has been illegally and

¶32

unlawfully transferred in Registry in favour of

¶33

certain others, even without his client being put to notice of the same. He submitted that this clearly

¶34

shows that things are amiss in the Office of the

¶35

Tahsildar (LR) and therefore, prayed that reliefs be granted to his client, as prayed for in this writ petition.

¶36

In response, the learned Senior Government

¶37

Pleader - Smt.Mable C.Kurian, submitted that a

¶38

statement has been filed on behalf of the 4^th

¶39

respondent, wherein, he has explained that every other property claimed by the petitioner has already been

¶40

transferred in Registry in his favour and that the controversy now rests only with respect to 0.81 Ares of land in Resurvey No.579/1. She submitted that this property has been included in Thandaper No.9987 in the names of three other persons and therefore, that they

¶41

will also have to be heard before it can be brought back into Thandaper No.9887, which is the one allotted

¶42

WP(C) NO. 1180 OF 2022 4

¶43

in the name of the petitioner. She concluded by saying that the Surveyor could not determine the boundaries of the said extent in spite of best effort and that petitioner is also aware of this, particularly because there are some rights of easement claimed on it, which is, in fact, a pathway. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶44

I have evaluated the afore submissions and

¶45

have examined Ext.P7, which is impugned in this writ petition.

¶46

As rightly stated by the petitioner, in Ext.P7 the only reason stated by the Tahsildar (LR) is that the boundaries of the property are not properly determined and therefore, that his application for transfer of its Registry cannot be acceded to. However, in the Statement filed on behalf of the 4^th respondent, more details are given, particularly that the property in question is now included in Thandaper No.9987 and was later transferred to three other

¶47

persons with Thandaper Nos.14398, 14418 and 23985

¶48

respectively.

¶49

WP(C) NO. 1180 OF 2022 5

¶50

That said, the Statement does not explain how

¶51

these transfers were made, especially when the

¶52

petitioner says that he has absolutely no idea about

¶53

the same. Certainly, as rightly argued by

¶54

Shri.B.Mohanlal, this is a matter which will require to be investigated and enquired into properly by the competent Authorities, particularly because it relates to rights over lands which are now very valuable. If the transfers in favour of the persons whose names are mentioned in the Statement are true and if this has been done without the knowledge of the petitioner, then surely it will require to be seriously taken note of by the competent Authorities.

¶55

In the afore perspective, I order this writ

¶56

petition and set aside Ext.P7; with a consequential direction to the 4^th respondent – Tahsildar (Land Records), to reconsider the matter, after causing an enquiry as to how the property in question has been transferred in favour of the three others in the afore mentioned Thandaper Accounts, when the petitioner says that he has not given any consent for the same, nor

¶57

WP(C) NO. 1180 OF 2022 6

¶58

has he executed any transfer in favour of such persons. This shall be done after hearing all the

¶59

parties including the three persons mentioned in the Statement of the 4^th respondent.

¶60

This enquiry shall be completed in terms of law, adverting to all the germane records, including the title document of the petitioner and resultant orders issued thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶61

While conducting the afore enquiry, particular emphasis will be placed on the aspect as to how the transfer of property in question was made in favour of three persons mentioned in the Statement of the 4^th respondent, in the context of the petitioner's assertion that this has been done in an unlawful and clandestine manner.

¶62

On conclusion of the afore enquiry, the Tahsildar will take steps to effect the transfer of Registry of

¶63

the property, if found eligible in favour of the petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible, but not

¶64

WP(C) NO. 1180 OF 2022 7

¶65

later than one month thereafter

¶66

Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order

¶67

communicated to the petitioner, his possession over the property in question – if he is still holding - shall not be disturbed and he will be entitled to use it, subject to any decision to be taken by the Tahsildar in terms of the afore directions.

¶68

It is unnecessary to state specifically that this

¶69

Court has not entered into the contentions of any of the parties on its merits and that it is up to the Tahsildar to conduct a proper enquiry and to conclude appropriately, including as to the rights of the third parties and the petitioner over the property in question.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶72

MC/15.3

¶73

WP(C) NO. 1180 OF 2022 8

¶74

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1180/2022

¶75

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶76

Exhibit P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3177/1998 DATED 03.12.1998 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY SUB REGISTRY OBTAINED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.776/1996 DATED 08.03.1996 OF SASTHAMCOTTAH SUB REGISTRY OBTAINED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C1- 10756/2019 DATED 17.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.08.2021 FOR THE YEAR 2021-2022 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.07.2021 IN WPC NO.4118/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.11.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HIS COUNSEL TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C1-10757/16 DATED 20.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH NO.389/2021 DATED 07.10.2021 PREPARED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR AND SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION ADVOCATE IN OS 29/2021 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, SASTHAMCOTTAH IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.

T. Mohanan Pillai, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Mohanan Pillai, 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

M.C.Muralidharan Vs District Collector

Nagarajan Vs the Tahsildar (Survey)

Gopuran Associates Vs Asset Homes Pvt. Ltd.

James K Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Salini Chandran Vs Manoj Kumar P.V.

Saji T.K., Vs State of Kerala