Allowed

Shankar Narayanan v.B., v. the Tahsildar, Aluva Taluk Office

Kerala HC22 Mar 2022WP(C)/1864/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Tahsildar's refusal to transfer the property registry, arguing that a prior High Court judgment in his grandfather's favor conferred title. The Court directed the Tahsildar to transfer the registry within a month to enable land tax remittance.

What did the court decide?

The Tahsildar is directed to issue an appropriate order transferring the property registry in the petitioner's favor, specifying the prior judgment, within one month.

Shankar Narayanan v.B., Vs the Tahsildar, Aluva Taluk Office — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1864 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHANKAR NARAYANAN V.B., AGED 45 YEARS RAMA VILAS, WALL STREET, PALACE ROAD, ALUVA-683 101.

¶8

BY ADVS. M.R.SASITH R.K.CHIRUTHA NEELANJANA NAIR RANJITH E N RAJITHA V.K PREETI S.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA TALUK OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, KERALA-683 101.

¶11

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE OFFICE, ALUVA, SH 16, BRIDGE ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR, KOCHI, KERALA-683 101.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

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

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C) NO. 1864 OF 2022

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner claims to be in possession and ownership of the property involved in this case and has explained the derivation of title through his maternal grandfather, Late Raman Unni, in the pleadings of this case. The grievance impelled by him in this writ petition is that in spite of the fact that he is the owner of the property, the 1 st respondent – Tahsildar has not acceded to the request for transfer of its Registry in his favour, that he can continue to remit land tax on its strength.

¶19

2 . The petitioner thus prays that the Tahsildar be directed to accede to the request in the light of Ext.P1 judgment of this Court, which he says has declared the rights of his maternal grandfather unequivocally and adverting to Ext.P7 proceedings of the former Tahsildar.

¶20

3 . The afore request of the petitioner, made by the learned counsel – Smt.Neelanjana Nair K., was answered by

¶21

WP(C) NO. 1864 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

Smt.Mable C. Kurian – learned Senior Government Pleader, saying that pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 04/03/2022, the Tahsildar has now settled an order dated 21/03/2022; but without issuing it, in deference to the directions of this Court, allowing the petitioner to remit land tax on the property, but retaining it in the same 'Thandaper' as its original 'Janmi' Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust, Varkala. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that this is because, the petitioner's grandfather took the property only on lease and, therefore, that petitioner cannot claim anything more or seek that land be transferred in Registry in his favour. She added that if this Court is inclined to allow the Tahsildar to do so, he will issue the afore mentioned order to the petitioner.

¶24

4 . I notice from the files that the interim order of this Court referred to by the learned Senior Government Pleader is the one dated 04/03/2022, which is as under:

¶25

Pending this Writ Petition, I am of the view that the 1 std

¶26

WP(C) NO. 1864 OF 2022

¶27

¶28

04/03/2022, respondent - Tahsildar must pass an order as directed in the earlier judgment of this Court.

¶29

The learned Senior Government Pleader says that the petitioner did not co-operate with the hearing while the petitioner contends to the contrary.

¶30

In the afore circumstances, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance before the 1st respondent - Tahsildar at 11.00 a.m. on 14-03-2022, on which day, the said Authority will complete the hearing and settle an appropriate order, but will not issue it. The said order will be placed on record by the learned Senior Government Pleader before this court to take a decision as per law in this matter within a period of one week thereafter.

¶31

5 . As have initiated above, the Tahsildar has now taken

¶32

the view that transfer of Registry of the property cannot be effected in favour of the petitioner, because his maternal grandfather obtained only a lease over it from the original Janmi.

¶33

6 . However, the Tahsildar appears to have lost sight of the fact that in Ext.P1 judgment delivered by the High Court of the State of Travancore, Cochin in S.A.No.485 of 1955 it has been expressly declared that the appellant therein – the maternal grandfather of the petitioner – was entitled to the benefit and protection under Section 4 of the Holdings (Stay of Execution Proceedings) Act, 1950, because he could not be

¶34

¶35

WP(C) NO. 1864 OF 2022

¶36

dispossessed from the property by the original 'Janmi' on account of the operation of various protective covenants contained therein. When one examines Ext.P1 very carefully, it is evident that no residuary rights have been reserved in favour of the original Janmi; and in such context, I cannot understand how the Tahsildar could say that petitioner can be allowed to pay land tax, but in the 'Thandaper' account of the Janmi. When Ext.P1 judgment declares that the Janmi obtains no rights – even residuary – on the property in question on account of the operation of law and efflux of time, it is ineluctable that the petitioner should be favoured with the transfer in his favour, so as to enable him to remit land tax on it without any impediment in future.

¶37

7 . In such circumstances and taking into account the impact of Ext.P1, I am certain that Tahsildar must accede to the request of the petitioner to have the registry of the property involved in this case transfered in his favour without any avoidable delay.

¶38

WP(C) NO. 1864 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered and the Tahsildar is directed to issue an appropriate order accepting to the request of the petitioner, adverting specifically Ext.P1 judgment of the High Court of the State of Travancore, Cochin; which shall be done as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶42

ANB

¶43

WP(C) NO. 1864 OF 2022

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1864/2022

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN SA NO.485/1955 DATED 18.06.2956.
Exhibit	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.3885 OF 1976 DATED 27.11.2976.
Exhibit	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WILL NO.57 OF 1985 DATED 02.08.1985.
Exhibit	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT WITH RESPECT TO 01.41 ARES PAID FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 DATED 20.01.2021.
Exhibit	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT WITH RESPECT TO 0.73 ARES PAID FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 DATED 20.01.2021.
Exhibit	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 03.03.2021.
Exhibit	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE THEN ALUVA ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR IN D2-12552/10 DATED 07.03.2011.
Exhibit	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT PAID FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 DATED 14.09.2021.
Exhibit	P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 07.01.2022.

Shankar Narayanan v.B., v. the Tahsildar, Aluva Taluk Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Narayanan v.B., v. the Tahsildar, Aluva Taluk Office

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

Jayanth P.N. Vs State of Kerala

Aswathy.L Vs Sulekha P.

Laija Navabudeen Vs State of Kerala

N.Vasudevan, Vs the State of Kerala

Rajan .T.T Vs State of Kerala

Prakasan Vs State of Kerala