Allowed

E.v.Joseph v. the Principal Secretay

Kerala HC27 Nov 2023WP(C)/9504/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Kerala disposed of two writ petitions challenging a mutation cancellation order passed without hearing the petitioners. The court quashed the order as a violation of natural justice and directed the Tahsildar to reconsider the cancellation application after hearing all interested parties within one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order cancelling mutation quashed. Direction issued to Tahsildar to reconsider cancellation application after hearing all parties within one month.

E.v.Joseph Vs the Principal Secretay — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO.30974 OF 2019

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 E.V.JOSEPH, AGED 87 YEARS, ENCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGOM, TRIPUNITHURA-682 301.

¶7

2 BABU THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS, ENJIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOODALLOOR.P.O, KIDANGUR VILLAGE, PIN-686 587.

¶8

BY ADV JOHN K.GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686002.

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 002.

¶12

3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR) TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., PIN-686 131.

¶14

5 GEORGEKUTTY, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, KUNNAMPILLI, PADINJAREKKARA P.O., UDAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM-686 631.

¶15

6 K.V.JOSE, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, KUNNAMPILLI, PADINJAREKKARA P.O., UDAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM-686 631.

¶16

7 MERECYKUTTY, AGED 50 YEARS D/O.VARKEY, KUNNAMPILLI, PADINJAREKKARA P.O., UDAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM-686 631.

¶17

8 SHAJU K.VARKEY, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, KUNNAMPILLI, PADINJAREKKARA P.O., UDAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM-686 631.

¶18

WP(C) Nos.30974/2019 & 9504/2021

¶19

¶20

9 SUNNY K.VARKEY, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, KUNNAMPILLI, PADINJAREKKARA P.O., UDAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM-686 631.

¶21

10 JIJIMON K.V., AGED 41 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, KUNNAMPILLI, PADINJAREKKARA P.O., UDAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM-686 631.

¶22

BY ADVS.SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
 SRI.BIMAL K.NATH – GP

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.9504/2021, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C) Nos.30974/2019 & 9504/2021

¶25

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO.9504 OF 2021

¶29

PETITIONER:

¶30

E.V.JOSEPH, AGED 89 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY,
ENCHIPARARAMBIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGOM,
TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682301.
BY ADV.JOHN K.GEORGE

¶31

RESPONDENTS:

¶32

1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶33

2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER REVENUE COMPLEX, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶34

3 THE TAHSILDAR(LAND ACQUISITION) KOTTAYAM, MINI CIVIL STATION, PIN-686001.

¶35

4 P.S. GEETHAKUMARI, (FORMER TAHSILDAR, (LA) KOTTAYAM), NOW WORKING AS SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, L.A UNIT, NHDP, CHEMPUKKAVU, THRISSUR-680020.

¶36

(CAUSE TITLE OF R4 AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 20/04/2021 IN IA NO.2/2021)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.30974/2019, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

WP(C) Nos.30974/2019 & 9504/2021 4

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

WP(C) No.30974/2019

¶41

The petitioners state that they are the owners
of property covered by Ext.P1 Sale Deed. It is
further stated that the property was mutated in the
name of the 1st petitioner and his brother and was in
their possession and enjoyment. The 6th respondent,
the nephew of the 1st petitioner, filed Ext.P7
application for cancellation of mutation on the
ground that the property belonged to the grandfather
of the 6th respondent as per Ext. R6(a) Partition
Deed. The 3rd respondent/Tahsildar (LR) passed Ext.P8
order cancelling the mutation. Ext.P8 is challenged
in this writ petition on the ground that the same
has been passed by the 3rd respondent in collusion

¶42

WP(C) Nos.30974/2019 & 9504/2021

¶43

¶44

with the 6th respondent and without hearing the
petitioners.

¶45

2. Heard Sri.John K.George, the learned counsel
for the petitioners, Sri.Liji J.Vadekedom and the
learned Government Pleader.

¶46

3. It is evident that Ext. P8 order has been
passed by the 3rd respondent without hearing the
petitioners. Ext. P8 is an order cancelling the
mutation effected. Since Ext. P8 brings civil
consequences to the petitioners, the 3rd respondent
ought not to have passed the said order without
hearing the petitioners. Ext. P8 order has been
passed in violation of the principles of natural
justice. Accordingly, the same is set aside.

¶47

4. There will be a direction to the 3rd
respondent to consider the application of the 6th

¶48

WP(C) Nos.30974/2019 & 9504/2021

¶49

¶50

respondent for cancellation of mutation, referred to
in Ext.P8, after hearing the petitioners, the 6th
respondent and all affected/interested parties in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate, within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It will
be open to the parties to represent in the
proceedings before the 3rdrespondent through
authorised representatives. The land tax shall be
accepted in respect of the properties only after a
decision is taken as above.

¶51

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶52

W.P.(c). No. 9504/2021

¶53

This writ petition is filed for a direction to
the 1st respondent to take action against the 3rd
respondent, Tahsildar (LR) who passed the impugned

¶54

WP(C) Nos.30974/2019 & 9504/2021 7

¶55

order in W.P.(c) No. 30974/2019, for dereliction of
duty.

¶56

The learned Government Pleader submits that the
incumbent has retired from service and the
Government have dropped further proceedings against
her as per order dated 10.01.2022. Recording the
submission of the learned Government Pleader, this
writ petition is closed.

¶57

 Sd/-

¶58

 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
 JUDGE

¶59

sp/bnu

¶60

WP(C) Nos.30974/2019 & 9504/2021

¶61

¶62

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.30974 OF 2019

¶63

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:-

¶64

`EXHIBIT P1`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF` `DATED 23.5.1981.`	`THE DOCUMENT NO.1803/81`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 30.3.2019.`	`DECREE IN O.S.NO.172/16`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD` `23.11.2016.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND` `28.6.2018.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE FIRST PETI` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`APPEAL PETITION FILED BY` `TIONER BEFORE THE IST` `31.7.2018.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF TH` `PASSED BY THE DIS` `OBTAINED BY THE` `ACT.`	`E ORDER DATED 9.8.2017` `TRICT REGISTRAR KOTTAYAM` `IST PETITIONER UNDER RTI`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `6TH RESPONDENT B` `DATED 30.5.2019.`	`COMPLAINT FILED BY THE` `EFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD` `1.2.2019.`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PETITIONER BEFOR` `DATED 10.7.19.`	`APPEAL FILED BY THE IST` `E THE IST RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DOCUMENT`	`SCHEDULE OF EXHIBIT P1`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `EXHIBIT P6(A) DOC`	`SCHEDULE - ITEM 7C OF` `UMENT`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`THE TYPED COPY` `EXT.P1 DOCUMENT D` `SRI.NEELAKANTAN N`	`OF THE PRIOR TITLE TO` `ATED 1104 ME EXECUTED BY` `AIR TO SMT.BRIJITHA`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`THE TYPED COPY` `EXT.P11 A DOCUMEN`	`OF THE PRIOR TITLE TO` `T OF THE YEAR 1091 ME.`

¶65

WP(C) Nos.30974/2019 & 9504/2021

¶66

¶67

EXHIBIT P13TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) KOTTAYAM DATED
31/1/1992
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS :-
EXHIBIT-R6(A)THE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
PARTITION DEED NO.1777/1961 OF THE SRO,
ETUMANOOR ALONG WITH THE TYPED COPY OF
THE SAME.
EXHIBIT-R6(B)THE COPY OF THE FIELD REGISTER.
EXHIBITR6(C)THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE COPY OF THE
BASIC TAX REGISTER.
EXHIBIT-R6(D)THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.3.201
IN O.S.172/2016 BEFORE THE MUNSIFFS
COURT, ETTUMANOOR.
EXHIBIT-R6(E)THE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
NO.5369/17 DATED 21.6.2017 (CONDUCTING
THE SEARCH FROM 1.1.1960 TILL 13.6.2017)
EXHIBIT-R6(F)THE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION PETITION ALONG
WITH THE SCHEDULE OF THE PLAINT PROPERTY
IN O.S.NO.108/2017 BEFORE THE MUNISIFFS
COURT, ETTUMANOOR.
EXHIBIT-R6(G)THE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED
BY THIS RESPONDENT O.S.NO.108/2017 BEFORE
THE MUNSIFFS COURT, ETUMANOOR.
EXHIBIT-R6(H)THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/09/2018
IN O.S.NO.108/2017 BEFORE THE MUNSIFFS
COURT, ETTUMANOOR.
EXHIBIT-R6(I)THE COPY OF THE PLAIN IN O.S.168/2018
BEFORE THE MUNSIFFS COURT, ETTUMANOOR.
EXHIBIT R6 JTHE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
1.8.2021 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM TO THE COMMISSIONER,
LAND REVENUE
EXHIBIT R6 KTHE COPY OF THE REPORT NO RVCA 1-411/21
DATED 15.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY
COLLECOTR (VIGILANCE) LR TO THE
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

¶68

¶69

WP(C) Nos.30974/2019 & 9504/2021

¶70

EXHIBIT R6 1THE COPY OF THE G.O (RT) NO 131/2022/RD
DATED 10.1.2022
EXHIBIT R6(M)A COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 80/2020
BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT R6(N)THE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED
BY THE 2ND DEFENDANT IN O.S. 80/2020
BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶71

WP(C) Nos.30974/2019 & 9504/2021

¶72

¶73

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.9504 OF 2021

¶74

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :-

¶75

EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1583/81
DATED 23/05/1981.
EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS NO.
172/2016 DATED 30.03.2019.
EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED
01.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
08/01/2021 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER
UNDER RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2021.
EXHIBIT P7A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
26/02/2021 SUBMITTED TO THE FIRST
RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTES IN RESPECT
OF P.V. 790/96 IN THE FILE RELATING TO
TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM E3-7711/16.

E.v.Joseph v. the Principal Secretay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.v.Joseph v. the Principal Secretay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.A. Jose Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner

Radhakrishnan K.T. Vs the Sub Registrar

M/S. Oriental Rock Products Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director, Sajeev Mathew. Vs the Secretary

Marykutty Vs Union of India

Charly Abraham Vs Union of India

Praveen Kumar.S, Vs the Sub Registrar