Allowed

Mariam Alias Baby v. Arun

Kerala HC18 Nov 2022WP(C)/28405/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge of the Kerala High Court directed the Deputy Collector to trace or reconstruct the file and issue a duplicate purchase certificate within three months. The court also quashed the rejection of the petitioner's appeal and allowed it to be received.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 4th respondent to issue duplicate purchase certificate within 3 months; 3rd respondent directed to receive Ext.P8 appeal; Ext.P5 stay.

Mariam Alias Baby Vs Arun — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 28405 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MARIAM ALIAS BABY AGED 67 YEARS, D/O KUTHOOR ANTHONY & W/O CHIRAMMAL GEORGE ALIAS FRANCIS, VELLUR DESOM, P.O VELLUR, PIN -680601, VELLATTANJOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 ARUN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. MOOKKEN DAVID, Q ROSE ROAD, FORT KOCHI DESOM, P.O FORT KOCHI, PIN-682001, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. 2 MULAGUNNATHUKAVU DEVASWOM, MULAGUNNATHUKAVU DESOM, P.O MULAGUNNATHUKAVU, PIN-680581, KILLANNUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SOMAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶10

3 LAND TRIBUNAL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR COLLECTORATE BUILDING, AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680003.

¶11

4 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND REFORMS) LAND TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680003.

¶12

5 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680003. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C)No.28405/2022

T.R. RAVI, J.

W.P.(C)No.28405 of 2022

¶18

Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2022

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Admit. Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

¶21

2 . The petitioner has filed Ext.P6 application before the 4 th respondent to issue certified copy of Ext.P5 purchase certificate issued in the name of the 1 st respondent. The 4 th respondent has not given any reply to Ext.P6 application. Thereafter, the 5 th respondent District Collector has given Ext.P7 reply stating that records relating to Ext.P5 purchase certificate could not be traced out. The petitioner has thereafter filed Ext.P8 appeal against Ext.P5 purchase certificate before the 3 rd respondent with an application to condone delay and to dispense with production of Ext.P5 purchase certificate, which was returned by the 3 rd respondent stating that certified copy of the order of the Land Tribunal has not been produced. The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to call for the records leading to the order dated 23.4.2022 passed by the 3 rd respondent by which Ext.P8 appeal has been returned and quash the same, to call for the records leading to Ext.P7 reply given by the 5 th respondent; to direct the 4 th respondent to issue certified copy of Ext.P5 purchase certificate on the basis of Ext.P6 application; to direct the 3 rd respondent to receive

¶22

W.P.(C)No.28405/2022

¶23

¶24

Ext.P8 appeal, dispensing with production of Ext.P5 purchase certificate; to stay the operation of Ext.P5 purchase certificate until the 3 rd respondent dispose of Ext.P6 appeal and for other consequential reliefs.

¶25

3 . The petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C)No.1125 of 2013 wherein a similar issue was considered. The Government Pleader on instructions submits that the fact situation is similar to that which is obtained in W.P.(C)No.1125 of 2013.

¶26

4 . I do not find any reason to take a different view than what was taken in W.P.(C)No.1125 of 2013. There will hence be a direction to the 4 th respondent to retrieve/trace out the concerned file forthwith and if the same is not possible, to reconstruct the file and to issue duplicate purchase certificate to the petitioner, on satisfaction of the requirements in accordance with the relevant Rules and on the petitioner remitting the required charges, if any payable. The proceedings shall be finalised at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶27

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶28

Sd/- T.R. RAVI JUDGE

dsn

W.P.(C)No.28405/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28405/2022

¶33

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶34

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 08-06- 1963 EXECUTED BY SMT. KUNJANNAM THOMAKKUTTY IN FAVOR OF SRI ANTONY KUTHOOR WITH READABLE COPY.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL NO.160/2002 OF S.R.O, THRISSUR DATED 19- 06-2002.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCHS SHOWING THE PROPERTIES GIVEN AS PER EXHIBIT-P2.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 15-02-2016, ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VIYYOOR VILLAGE.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.319/2006 DATED 29-12-2006 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.08.2021.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 08.09.2021.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE UNNUMBERED APPEAL OF 2022 DATED 20.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20-04-2022 FILED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P8 APPEAL BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER TO CONDONE THE DELAY.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO DISPENSE THE PRODUCTION OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE.

Mariam Alias Baby v. Arun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariam Alias Baby v. Arun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E K Joseph, Vs the Special Tahsildar (La)

Sukesh Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Ebrahim Kutty Kunnumpurath Vs the District Registrar General, Kannur

Babu T a Vs Chalakudy Municipality

Bank of Baroda, Vs the Village Officer

Nandakumar Vs the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram