Petitioners challenged the refusal of the Village Officer to effect land mutation in their names despite evidence of succession via a settlement deed and death certificate, as no legal heirship certificate was produced.
Direction to the 3rd respondent to effect mutation in favor of the 1st petitioner within three weeks from receipt.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024/16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO.6095 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
BY ADVS. PRATHEESH.P GOPIKA T.G.
RESPONDENTS:
BY ADV. AJITH VISWANATHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) No.6095 of 2023
- 2 -
JUDGMENT Dated, this the 6th June, 2024
The 1st petitioner claims title to the subject property partially by intestate succession and partially on the strength of a settlement deed dated 29.05.2014. However, when the 1st petitioner approached the 3rd respondent/Village Officer, he refused to effect mutation, is the grievance espoused in this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.
3. It is not in dispute that the property originally belonged to one Asuma Ummal, who is the grand mother of one Abida Beevi. Asuma Ummal executed a settlement deed in favour of her grand daughter Abida Beevi and she became the owner of the subject property. Abida Beevi died, whereupon, her
W.P(C) No.6095 of 2023
- 3 -
husband and son (the petitioners herein) became the legal heirs, who succeeded to the subject property. Husband of Abida Beevi, executed the settlement deed afore referred in favour of the 1st petitioner/son.
The 1st petitioner is thus claiming to be the absolute owner of the scheduled property.
4. As per the instructions received by the learned Government Pleader, mutation is not being effected for want of legal heirship certificate. A statement to that effect has also been filed. This Court is afraid whether the stand taken by the respondent officers is in consonance with the requirements of the Transfer of Registry Rules. Rule 3(c) deals with the procedure for transfers pursuant to succession.
There, a duty is cast upon the Village Officer to report to the Tahsildar about the factum of death of a pattadar, along with the names of his legal heirs, so far as can be ascertained. Rule 27(i) deals with succession by heirship. There, the Tahsildar is
W.P(C) No.6095 of 2023
- 4 -
enjoined to conduct an enquiry and if the succession is not disputed, the Tahsildar stands duty bound to direct Transfer of Registry at once or after due enquiry. It is only when the succession is disputed that a summary enquiry as to who is entitled to succeed to the property has to be conducted in accord with the principles of the law of succession, which governs the parties. In the instant case, nobody has disputed the succession claimed by the petitioners. Therefore, there cannot be any legal impediment in effecting mutation in the name of the 1st petitioner, as claimed in the writ petition. This Court cannot find any statutory backing for insisting upon legal heirship certificate to be produced by the petitioners to effect mutation. That apart, this Court finds that as per Rule 16, the authority concerned has the power to revise the pattas based on the adjudication, if any, by the civil court.
5. In the circumstances, there will be a direction
W.P(C) No.6095 of 2023 - 5 -
to the 3rd respondent/Village Officer to effect mutation in respect of the subject property in favour of the 1st petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ww
W.P(C) No.6095 of 2023
- 6 -
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6095/2023
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 4.6.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF REPORT DATED 27.7.2022 FORWARDED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF LATE.ABIDA BEEVI DATED 28.7.2022. EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 14.10.2022. EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 THE COPY OF LETTER DATED 11.1.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the refusal to effect mutation in favor of the petitioners claiming title via settlement and succession without a legal heirship certificate violates the Transfer of Registry Rules.
Whether the Village Officer is directed to effect mutation in favor of the 1st petitioner under the Transfer of Registry Rules.
Faisal
Ali Akber
The District Collector, Civil Station, Kollam
The Tahsildar (LR), Kotarakara Taluk
The Village Officer, Nilamel Village
C. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
