Disposed

Nasar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Mar 2024WP(C)/26396/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of a transfer of registry/mutation order. Government Pleader cited Rule 18 of Transfer of Registry Rules permitting appeal to RDO; court directed petitioner to file appeal with Revenue Divisional Officer and directed its timely disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to lodge appeal against Ext.P6 before RDO within two weeks; appeal to be decided per Rule 18 with hearing, within two months.

Nasar Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 26396 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NASAR,AGED 50 YEARS

¶8

S/O IBRAHIM, VERETHEDUVAZHI, KATTOOR P.O, TRISSUR,, PIN - 680702

¶9

BY ADV F.ANCY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶13

2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA 1ST FLOOR, 9655+J4Q, CIVIL STATION ANNEXE, IRINJALAKUDA, KERALA,, PIN - 680125

¶14

3 THE TAHSILDAR MUKUNDAPURAM, CHEMMANDA RD, IRINJALAKUDA, KERALA, PIN - 680125

¶15

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER 95C5+GF8, KATTOOR, KERALA, PIN - 680702

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SR.GP - JUSTIN JACOB

¶18

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

¶19

12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C).No.26396 of 2023 2

¶21

VIJU ABRAHAM,J

¶22

W.P.(C).No.26396 of 2023

¶23

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2024

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Petitioner has approached this Court

¶26

challenging Ext.P6 whereby the request for

¶27

transfer of registry has been rejected.

¶28

The learned Government Pleader upon

¶29

instructions submitted that as per Rule 18 of the

¶30

Transfer of Registry Rules, an appeal will lie to

¶31

the RDO against the order passed by the Tahsildar.

¶32

In view of the above, the writ petition is

¶33

disposed of as follows:

¶34

The petitioner shall prefer an appeal

¶35

challenging Ext.P6 order before the 2^nd respondent RDO, within a period of 2 weeks. if an appeal is

¶36

preferred by the petitioner as directed above, the

¶37

same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law after affording an opportunity

¶38

of being heard to the petitioner within an outer

¶39

W.P.(C).No.26396 of 2023 3

¶40

limit of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶41

sd/-

¶42

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

¶43

¶44

W.P.(C).No.26396 of 2023 4

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26396/2023

¶46

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED BEARING REGISTRATION NO. 1550/I/2 OF KATTOOR SUB REGISTER OFFICE DATED 30.12.2022.

¶48

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶49

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY THE REJECTION LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶50

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER DATED 17.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶51

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE LETTER DATED 04.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶52

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE THE 3RD RESPONDENT REJECTED THE MUTATION APPLICATION VIA LETTER NO. B7-1761/2023 ON 05.07.2023

Nasar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Chithara Crusher Metals Vs Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives

Manoj Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

T.M. John Vs Geologist, District Office of the Department of Mining and Geology

Reghuvaran.P.a, Vs State of Kerala

Bini Denson, Vs State of Kerala

Alph K Varghese Vs Village Officer