Partly allowed

Sukumaran v. the District Collector

Kerala HC19 Mar 2024WP(C)/11960/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting a request to rectify revenue records regarding a property mistakenly classified as government land. The court relied on a prior judgment regarding tax register validity and the finding of an anomaly in the original re-survey. The impugned order was set aside, directing the Tahsildar to reconsider the matter within two months after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Order Ext.P9 set aside. Directed Tahsildar (LR) Kunnathunadu to reconsider petitioner's request after a hearing and finalise proceedings within two months.

Sukumaran Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM TUESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO.11960 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

SUKUMARAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN, MEKKAVUMOLATH HOUSE, AYYANCHIRANGARA BHAVOM, ARAKKAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683556

¶6

BY ADVS. RAFEEK. V.K. SAIJO HASSAN BENOJ C AUGUSTIN U.M.HASSAN AATHIRA SUNNY BINCY JOB SALMAN FARIS

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKAND, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682030

¶9

2 THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030

¶10

3 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683565

¶11

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ARAKKAPPADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683566 BY ADV.SRI.JUSTIN JACOB, SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C)NO.11960/2023

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2024

¶17

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P9 order and for a direction to take immediate action on Ext.P8 for rectification of mistakes in the revenue records.

¶18

2. The petitioner’s mother obtained 6.47 Ares of property as per Ext.P1 deed and she was paying tax in respect of the said property as evident from Ext.P2 tax receipts and that she was residing there after construction of a residential house. Consequent to the formation of Arackapdy Village, a re-survey was conducted and the property was treated as sarkar puramboke by wrongly describing the property as comprised in Old Survey No.459/1/F/1 instead of 521/1/C/4. Thereupon, Ext.P3 and P5 applications were submitted. In the meanwhile, the petitioner’s mother passed away and the property devolved upon the petitioner and other legal heirs. By Ext.P8 order, the District Collector, based on the report of the Tahsildar LR Kunnathunadu found that the issue occurred due to a mistake in the correlation of the survey number and that

¶19

WP(C)NO.11960/2023

¶20

¶21

transfer of registry could be effected in the name of legal heirs of the Thandaper account holder and directed the Tahsildar LR to do the needful in this regard. But the Tahsildar LR without considering the findings in Ext.P8 rejected the request of the petitioner as per Ext.P9 holding that as per the settlement register, the property comprised in Survey No. 521/1/C is shown as Tharissu land as per the settlement register and the petitioner has not produced any patta issued regarding the transfer of the said Tharissu land. A counter affidavit has been filed supporting the stand taken in Ext.P9.

¶22

3. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties.

¶23

4. Ext.P8 order has been issued taking into consideration the report submitted by the Tahsildar LR that what has happened is an anomaly while correlating the resurvey number and that transfer of registry could be effected in the name of legal heirs of the Thandaper account holder. It is the very same authority that submitted the report which rejected the request as per Ext.P9. A perusal

¶24

WP(C)NO.11960/2023

¶25

¶26

of Ext.P9 would reveal that the observations in Ext. P8 order were not considered while issuing the same. Yet another aspect to be noted is that mutation has already been effected after Ext.P1 sale deed and Thandaper No.3306 was assigned in the name of the petitioner’s mother and tax was also received as per Ext.P2. The counter-affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent also reveals that originally land was in possession of Kadambanat Illath Dhamodharan Neelakandan Elayath and Thandaper No. 3180 was assigned. This Court in Indira v. Sub Collector, 2020 (4) KLT 635 has held that the Basic Tax Register as envisaged in Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 is a vital statutory document and hence the entries in such a vital statutory document like the BTR cannot be simply ignored by the competent revenue officials concerned, so as to proceed adversely as against the parties like the petitioners merely on the ground that the old settlement register shows the description of the property otherwise. It is a fact that Thandaper account was assigned in respect of the predecessors of the property including the mother of the petitioner. Ext.P8 would show

¶27

WP(C)NO.11960/2023

¶28

¶29

that there is a mistake in the resurvey which ought to be corrected and mutation could be effected. The declaration of law in Indira’ s case cited supra and the findings in Ext.P8 were not considered while issuing Ext.P9 order.

¶30

5. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration taking into consideration the observations made above. Accordingly, Ext.P9 is set aside with a consequential direction to the Tahsildar (LR) Kunnathunadu to reconsider the request made by the petitioner and to finalise the proceedings within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the Tahsildar (LR) Kunnathunadu for due compliance of the directions issued by this Court as the said authority is not a party to the writ proceedings.

¶31

With the above-said directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

csl

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11960/2023

¶38

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1880/1973 DATED 15.06.1973 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 03.01.1985 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER'S MOTHER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.07.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITONER'S FATHER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 06.02.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 12812/2020 DATED 29.06.2020 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.11.2021

¶40

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶41

Exhibit R3 (a) True copy of the report of the Tahsildar (LR) dtd 28-10-2020 Exhibit R3 (b) True copy of the report of the Taluk

¶42

¶43

¶44

Surveyor dtd 23-11-2020

¶45

Exhibit R3 (c) True copy of the report of the Head Surveyor dtd 01-12-2020

Sukumaran v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumaran v. the District Collector

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

Mr.Biju Varghese George @ Varghese George Vs the District Collector

Daly Vs Union of India

M.T.Babu Vs District Collector, Ernakulam

Sajitha T.S. Vs the Tahasildar

James Antony Vs Director

Savithri @ Kuttiyamma Savithriamma Vs the State of Kerala