Allowed

Rahul Mottammal, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jan 2022WP(C)/828/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Tahsildar's refusal to issue a 'Thandaper' certificate. The Court set aside the refusal order, noting the reason given (State's intent to sue) was illogical given the petitioner's registry transfer. The Court directed the Tahsildar to reconsider the application within one month if no other legal impediments exist.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; Ext.P5 refused the order was set aside. The petitioner was directed to be given an opportunity of being heard, and the Tahsildar was directed to reconsider the applicati

Rahul Mottammal, Vs State of Kerala — 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

THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 30TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 828 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAHUL MOTTAMMAL,

¶8

AGED 31 YEARS S/O.MOTTAMMAL RAJAN, MOTTAMMAL HOUSE, THRICHAMBARAM, THALIPARAMBU, KANNUR-670 141,

¶9

REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER

¶10

MOTTAMMAL RAJAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.MATTAMMAL RAMAN, MOTTAMMAL HOUSE, THRICHAMBARAM, THALIPARAMBU, KANNUR-670 141.

¶11

BY ADVS. ZAKEER HUSSAIN K.A.SANJEETHA

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

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

¶14

2 THE SPECIAL OFFICER, GOVT. LAND RESUMPTION STATE SPECIAL OFFICE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶15

3 THE TAHSILDAR, VYTHIRI TALUK OFFICE, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD-673 576.

¶16

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLARIMALA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI-673 576.

¶17

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

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.01.2022,

¶19

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

W.P.(C) No. 828 of 2022

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Dated this the 20th day of January, 2022 .

¶24

The petitioner impugns Ext.P5 proceedings of the third respondent – Tahsildar, denying his request for providing a “Thandaper” certificate with respect to the property involved in this case, asserting that it is illegal and issued without proper application of mind.

¶25

Smt.K.A.Sanjeetha – learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon Exts.P6 to P9 judgments of this Court, argued that the issues – both factual and legal – involved in this case have already been noticed by this Court and answered in favour of her client; consequently, that Tahsildar erred in having issued Ext.P5 order. The learned counsel pointed that, in Ext.P5, the only reason stated for refusing to accede to the request of her client

¶26

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 828 of 2022

¶28

is that the State intends to file a civil suit against “Harisson Malayalam Ltd” (HML), to stake a claim on the ownership rights over the property in question. She contended that, Ext.P5 is without any forensic support and thus prayed that it be set aside.

¶29

In response, Smt.Mable C.Kurian – learned

¶30

Senior Government Pleader, affirmed that Ext.P5 has been issued because the State is to file a suit against the property in question, asserting rights over it. She argued that the property was earlier held in possession by HML and that the State has justified reasons to believe that same is untenable in law. She, therefore, prayed that Ext.P5 be left uninterdicted and that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶31

When I evaluate the afore submissions,

¶32

particularly in the light of Exts.P6 to P9 judgments, it is clear that the issues analogous to the ones impelled in

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 828 of 2022

¶35

this case have already been considered by this Court and answered in the manner as recorded therein.

¶36

I am in affirmation with the holdings and

¶37

findings in Exts.P6 to P9 and find no reason to differ from the same.

¶38

That said, since the only reason stated by the

¶39

Tahsildar in Ext.P5 is that the State intends to file a suit against the original owners of the property, it is apodictic that refusal to issue a “Thandaper” Certificate is without any logic, particularly when the transfer of Registry of the property in question has already been, admittedly, effected in favour of the petitioner.

¶40

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P5; with a consequential direction to the third respondent – Tahsildar, to consider the application of the petitioner and allow the same, if there are no other legal impediments standing in the way, and

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 828 of 2022

¶43

if all other requirements have been satisfied and complied with, de hors the reason stated in the said order and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

However, I make it reiteratingly clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of any of the other contentions of the rival parties and the competence of the Authorities concerned to proceed against the property, by filing a civil suit before the competent Civil Court, is left open, subject to the rights of the petitioner.

¶45

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶46

Raj/20.01.2022.

¶47

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 828 of 2022

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 828/2022

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `2010 OF KALPPETTA`	`SALE DEED NO.735 OF` `SUB REGISTRY OFFICE.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `18.10.2021 ISSUED` `RESPONDENT.`	`TAX RECEIPT DATED` `BY THE 4TH`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `21.10.2021 SUBMIT` `TO THE 4TH RESPON`	`APPLICATION DATED` `TED BY THE PETITIONER` `DENT.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `28.10.2021 ISSUED` `RESPONDENT TO THE`	`LETTER DATED` `BY THE 4TH` `3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `03.12.2021 OF THE`	`ORDER DATED` `3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `12.04.2018 IN WPC`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `NO.13227/2018.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `13.08.2018 IN WPC`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `NO.26062/2018.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `05.10.2018 IN WPC`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `NO.32461/2018.`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `12.11.2018 IN WPC`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `NO.35170/2018.`

Rahul Mottammal, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Mottammal, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Village Officer Vs Gem Farm

Manoj Mavunkal Vs Tahsildar (Land Records)

Muhammed Asharaf Vs the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Manivasagar.S Vs Tahsildar (Lr)

Antony Luiz Vs the District Collector

Sadique Ali Vs Special Tahsildar (Lr)