In a writ petition, the Kerala High Court quashed a Tahsildar's order cancelling a property registration. The Court held that revenue officials cannot review civil court-decided titles and lacked power to cancel records over 19 years old.
Ext.P9 order quashed; direction not to cancel petitioner's registration granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
W. P. (C)No.6703/19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
WEDNESDAY, THE 13 T H DAY OF DECEMBER 2023/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 6703 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
**K.M.HASHIM (CORRECTED AS 'K.A.HASHIM') AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.SALMA BEEVI, KANNIAKULANGARA PUTHEN VEEDU, THOZHUTHUMOOLA, VEMBAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. (INITIAL OF THE PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS ‘K.A.’ INSTEAD OF ‘K.M.’ AS PER ORDER DATED 06.03.2019). BY ADVS. SRI LIJU.V.STEPHEN SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANICKAL VILLAGE, KUTHIRAKULAM P.O., PIRAPPANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 607.
3 MR.ABDUL VAHEED, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, VELLAKUZHY VEEDU, KAPPUKADU, KOTTOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 574. 4 A.KASSIM, S/O.AHAMMED PILLAI, NARANATHU PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KUTTICHAL, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKKARA VILLAGE, FROM PLAVILA VEEDU, THEEPPUKAL MURI, VEMBAYAM VILLAGE - 695 574.
BY ADVS. SMT.DEEPA V., GOVT.PLEADER SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.VISHAK.K.JOHNSON SRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.07.2022, THE COURT ON 13.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W. P. (C)No.6703/19
T.R. RAVI, J.
W. P. (C)No.6703 of 2019
Dated this the 13 th day of December, 2023
JUDGMENT
The writ petition has been filed praying to set aside Ext.P9 order issued by the 2 nd respondent and for a direction to respondents 1 & 2 not to cancel the registration granted to the petitioner regarding 4.40 Ares of land in Old Survey No.1681/3, Re-survey No.188/19 in Manickal Village, under the Transfer of Registry Rules.
2 . The property in question devolved on the petitioner's mother by virtue of the preliminary and final decree in O.S.No.4/1972 of Sub Court, Attingal. As per the decree, the petitioner's mother was entitled to 11 Cents of land in Survey No.1681/3 (Re-Survey 188/19) in Manickal Village. The nature of the property was Sree Pandaravaka property. The petitioner's mother applied under Sections 4 & 8 of the Sree Pandaravaka Lands (Vesting & Enfranchisement) Act, 1971 for the assignment of the proprietary/ownership right over the 11 Cents of land. The Sree Pandaravaka Special Tahsildar issued Ext.P13 patta to the
3
W. P. (C)No.6703/19
petitioner's mother. The petitioner's mother had been remitting land tax for the land ever since. The petitioner's mother executed a gift deed regarding the said 11 cents of land in favour of the petitioner, and the petitioner has been remitting land tax thereafter.
3 . In 1999, the 4 th respondent's father, Ahammed Pillai, claiming ownership over the 11 Cents of land, approached this Court by filing O.P.No.11480/1999 seeking Police protection. The Original Petition was dismissed as per Ext.P12 judgment, directing Ahammed Pillai to approach the civil court. Ahammed Pillai, along with his children, filed O.S.No.499/2001 before the Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad, seeking the relief of recovery of possession and declaration of his right over the 11 Cents of land in Survey No.1681/3 against the petitioner and his mother. The Munsiff's Court dismissed the suit, finding that Ahammed Pillai never came into possession of the said land and even if Ahammed Pillai had any right over the land, the same had been lost by adverse possession and limitation. The petitioner's mother had got the property as per the decree in O.S.No.4/1972. It can be seen from Ext.P1 judgment in O.S.No.499 of 2001 that the suit properties were in the possession of the Court receiver during the pendency
4
W. P. (C)No.6703/19
of O.S.No.4/1972 and that the partition suit was decreed on 20.8.1990. It is also evident that the properties were put in possession of the petitioner’s mother on 25.9.1992. Sri Ahammed Pillai filed the suit only nine years later. As such, Sri Ahammed Pillai was not in possession of the properties during the pendency of O.S.No.4 of 1972 and thereafter. The judgment and decree in O.S.499/2001 were challenged in A.S.No.68/2005 before the Sub Court, Nedumangad. Pending the appeal, Ahammed Pillai passed away. The appellate court, however, reversed the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit, finding that it was the defendants in the suit who should have proved adverse possession and limitation. The appellate court failed to consider that the suit was filed seeking recovery of possession 29 years after the execution of O.S.No.4 of 1972 and eleven years after the said suit was decreed. The petitioner challenged the judgment of the appellate court in RSA No.596/2015 before this Court. While the second appeal was pending, the children of Ahammed Pillai and the petitioner entered into a settlement deed, and the children of Ahammed Pillai relinquished all their claims over the 11 Cents of land.
4 . The petitioner submits that in 2019, he received a
5
W. P. (C)No.6703/19
notice from the 2 nd respondent Tahsildar, based on an application filed by the 3 rd respondent for issuance of thandaper in his favour regarding the 11 Cents of land on the basis of an alleged Sale Deed No.775/1999 executed by Ahammed Pillai in favour of the 3 rd respondent. The petitioner appeared before the 2 nd respondent and produced the judgments of the civil court which established the rights of the petitioner and his predecessors over the 11 Cents of land. However, the 2 nd respondent by Ext.P9 order, reviewed the order dated 31.09.1999 passed by another Tahsildar and directed issuance of thandaper in favour of the 3 rd respondent regarding the property in Survey No.1681/3. The petitioner has stated that Ahammed Pillai, while he was alive, had attempted to effect mutation in the year 1990, much before the alleged sale in favour of the 3 rd respondent, and the same was rejected by the then Tahsildar. No appeal was filed by Ahammed Pillai against the rejection of the request for mutation. This fact is taken note of in the judgment in O.S.No.499/2001 dated 30.06.2005. According to the petitioner, it is thereafter that Ahammed Pillai and the Village Assistant in the year 1999, tried to manipulate the records to get the thandaper number 9512 in favour of Ahammed Pillai. Ext.P22 is the application fee remitted by Ahammed Pillai for the
6
W. P. (C)No.6703/19
thandaper on 26.03.1999, and Thandaper No.9512 was issued in favour of Ahammed Pillai by Ext.P23 which is dated 29.03.1999. The petitioner's mother had filed a complaint in the year 1999 against the above change brought about by the issuance of Ext.P23. The Tahsildar conducted an enquiry and found that there was fraud played by Ahammed Pillai and the Village Assistant, and by proceedings dated 31.07.1999, the thandaper issued in favour of Ahammed Pillai was cancelled. The above fact is evidenced by the endorsement in Ext.P16. This fact is also specifically found in Ext.P1 judgment. It is the said proceedings dated 31.07.1999 which has been reviewed and cancelled by Ext.P9 order after more than 19 years. The petitioner has challenged Ext.P9 in the above circumstances.
5 . The 4 th respondent, who is a legal representative of Ahammed Pillai, has filed a counter affidavit stating that the issue between the children of Ahammed Pillai and the petitioner has been settled by means of a compromise decree. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 3 rd respondent wherein it is stated that the 3 rd respondent is a transferee from Ahammed Pillai in the year 1999, and what has been done by Ext.P9 is only a correction of a mistake which happened in 1999. It is hence submitted that no
7
W. P. (C)No.6703/19
interference is warranted in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6 . I have heard the counsel on either side.
7 . The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
judgment of the civil court had established the right of the petitioner over the property, and the same cannot be set at naught by an order issued under the Transfer of Registry Rules cancelling an earlier registry granted 19 years back. It is submitted that Ahammed Pillai had never challenged the proceedings whereby the registry in his name was cancelled. The transferee from Ahammed Pillai cannot have a better right than Ahammed Pillai. From 1999 onwards, Sri Ahammed Pillai and his children were contesting the
civil suit, staking their right over the property. Admittedly, Ahammed Pillai was not in possession of the property when O.S.No.499/2001 was filed since the suit itself was for recovery of possession. If, as a matter of fact, Ahammed Pillai had transferred the property in 1999, there was no reason for Ahammed Pillai and his children even to file the suit. The suit does not say anything about the transfer. Another glaring aspect is that the fraud is evident from the documents available. Ext.P10, which is the sale deed stated to have been executed in favour of the 3 rd respondent
8
W. P. (C)No.6703/19
by Ahammed Pillai, shows the date of execution as 25.03.1999. The sale deed shows thandaper No.9512 issued in favour of Ahammed Pillai. The application for the thandaper number itself was filed only a day later, on 26.03.1999. It is seen to have been issued by Ext.P23 only on 29.03.1999. As such, there was no possibility of the thandaper number being stated in Ext.P10 sale deed, which was executed on 25.03.1999. Another aspect that needs a mention is that the 2 nd respondent in the statement filed before this Court has stated that thandaper No.9512 was allotted to Ahammed Pillai by the Sree Pandaravaka Land Special Tahsildar. The above statement is not correct since Ahammed Pillai never got any patta or thandaper from Sree Pandaravaka Land Special Tahsildar. It is the petitioner's mother who, by Ext.P13, got patta and thandaper from the Sree Pandaravaka Land Special Tahsildar. The said proceedings have not been challenged by Ahammed Pillai. Another aspect stated in the statement of the 2 nd respondent is that the land owned by Ahammed Pillai is in ReSurvey No.118/2. This again does not appear to be correct, since on an enquiry by the then Tahsildar, which led to Ext.P6 cancelation order, the thandaper issued by the Village Officer in Re-survey No.188/2 has been cancelled. This fact is also noticed
9
W. P. (C)No.6703/19
in Ext.P1 judgment. The fact remains that the claim of Ahammed Pillai was regarding property in old Survey No.1681/3 which belonged to the petitioner.
8 . The law is well settled that the issue regarding the title to a property cannot be decided by a Tahsildar in proceedings under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1961. The Revenue Officers are bound by the decisions of the civil court, and they cannot sit in judgment over the same. The rights of the petitioner and his mother have become final by the judgments of the civil court as against the predecessor-in-interest of the 4 th respondent. The 3 rd respondent claims the right only through the predecessor of the 4th respondent. The 3 rd respondent cannot claim a right that is not available to the vendor. It is evident from the civil court decrees that the vendor was not in possession of the property at the time of the alleged sale. It is also evident that the date of issuance of the thandaper in favour of the vendor is after the sale deed, and curiously, the said thandaper number is stated in the sale deed itself, which is executed prior to the issuance.
9 . In the above circumstances, Ext.P9 cannot be sustained. There is no such power of review available to the Tahsildar to cancel an order that had been issued 19 years back.
10
W. P. (C)No.6703/19
Apart from that, the predecessor-in-interest had already suffered an order much earlier to the sale on a request for mutation, and the said order had not been challenged in any proceedings in a manner known to law.
10. The petitioner is entitled to succeed. The writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 order is quashed. There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 not to cancel the registration already issued under the Transfer of Registry Rules in favour of the petitioner.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI JUDGE
Pn/dsn
11
W. P. (C)No.6703/19
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6703/2019
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD IN O.S.NO.499/2001, DATED 30/6/2005. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN RSA NO.596/2015 DATED 24/1/2019. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 30/1/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 28/1/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY SKETCH ATTESTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 12/2/2019. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26/12/2018 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION MADE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 11/2/2019 ALONG WITH REGISTERED POSTAL COVER. |
| EXHIBIT P9 | A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/2/2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14/1/2019. |
| EXHIBIT P11 | A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT WITH REGARD TO THE CRITICISM MADE BY THE OMBUDSMAN AGAINST THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE MALAYALA MANORAM DAILY DATED 31/1/2019. |
| EXHIBIT P12 | A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5/8/1999 IN O.P.NO.11480/1999 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. |
| AN OFFICE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED | |
| EXHIBIT P12 | 6-12-2017 ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT AND |
| (Produced along with IA 1/22) EXHIBIT P13 |
PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN R.S.A.NO.596/2015. A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE |
12
W. P. (C)No.6703/19
| SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, SREE PANDARAWAKA LAND, VEMBAYAM DATED 7/1/94. |
|
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P14 | A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT ENTRY IN THE THANDAPER REGISTRY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL RECEIVED BY THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. |
| EXHIBIT P15 | A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT ENTRY IN THE THANDAPER REGISTRY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL RECEIVED BY THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. |
| EXHIBIT P16 | A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT ENTRY IN THE THANDAPER REGISTRY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL RECEIVED BY THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. |
| EXHIBIT P17 | A TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, MANICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 30/1/1999. |
| EXHIBIT P18 | A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE KANYAKULANGARA SRO FOR THE YEAR 1/1/1994 TO 5/3/2019. |
| EXHIBIT P19 | TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE NO.SPV 64/90 ISSUED TO AHAMMED PILLA DATED 14.3.1990 BY THE SPECIAL THAHASILDAR, PANDARAVAKA, VEMBAYAM. |
| EXHIBIT P20 | TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE NO.SPV 98/93 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL THAHASILDAR, PANDARAVAKA, VEMBAYAM DATED 06.10.93 TO THE PETITIONER’S MOTHER. |
| EXHIBIT P21 | TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM NO.9219 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER’S MOTHER WITH REGARD TO 11.183 CENTS OF LAND IN SY.NO.1681/3 IN MANICKAL VILLAGE DATED 07.01.1994. |
| EXHIBIT P22 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FEE RECEIPT REMITTED BY AHAMMED PILLA FOR ISSUING PATTAYAM (PV FEES) DATED 26.03.1999. |
| EXHIBIT P23 | TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER NO.9512 ALLOTTED TO AHAMMED PILLA BY RECEIPT NO.65, BOOK NO.1467 DATED 29.03.1999. |
| ANNEXURE A1 | THE ORIGINAL OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 8 DATED 6.12.2017. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tahsildar had the power under the Transfer of Registry Rules to cancel a registration order issued 19 years prior.
Whether the Revenue Officer can decide title issues that were already adjudicated by civil courts.
K.A.HASHIM
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANICKAL VILLAGE
THE THAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD
MR.ABDUL VAHEED
A.KASSIM
T.R. RAVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
