Sasi Kumar vs The District Collector on 8 December, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sasi Kumar vs The District Collector on 8 December, 2020

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

  TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.22229 OF 2020(C)


PETITIONERS:

      1        SASI KUMAR
               AGED 64 YEARS
               S/O.RAGHAVAN, KALLAMBALLIL HOUSE, VADAKKEKKARA,
               NOW RESIDING AT NITHERSHANA, NAKKANAL,
               KRISHNAPURAM P.O., OCHIRA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
               PIN - 695 033.

      2        VALSAMMA,
               W/O.SASI KUMAR, KALLAMBALLIL HOUSE, VADAKKEKKARA,
               NOW RESIDING AT NITHERSHANA, NAKKANAL,
               KRISHNAPURAM P.O., OCHIRA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
               PIN-690533.

               BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
               KOTTAYAM-686 001.

      2        THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
               MEENACHIL TALUK, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 575.

      3        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
               THEEKOY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 001.


               SRI KP HARISH, SR GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.22229 OF 2020                    2




                                     JUDGMENT

The petitioners herein are spouses. It is stated in the petition that the 1st petitioner is in title and possession of 1 acre of land, comprised in Sy. No.51/62 in Block No.62 of Theekoy Village whereas the 2nd petitioner owns and possesses property having an extent of 97.161 cents falling in Sy.No.51 in Block No.52 of Theekoy Village. The aforesaid properties were purchased by the petitioners on the strength of Exhibit P1 and P2 sale deeds. They have effected mutation in their names and have been remitting tax as well as is evident from Exhibits P3 and P4 receipts. With intent to assign the properties, the petitioners are stated to have approached the 2nd respondent and requested for issuance of Record of Rights ( RoR) Certificate. When no action was taken, they approached the 3rd respondent and submitted Exhibits P7 and P8 requests. However, no action was taken. It is in the above backdrop that this petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

"i. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P6 request or direct the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P7 and P8 requests and issue ROR certificate in respect of the WP(C).No.22229 OF 2020 3 land owned by the petitioners covered by Ext.P1 and P2 title deeds after hearing the petitioners forthwith."

2. Sri. George Mecheril, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that there is no justification on the part of the respondents in not issuing the RoR certificate as requested. The learned counsel submitted that the issuance of Certificate is not being processed on the ground that ceiling cases have been registered. However, it is apparent from Exhibit P 13, that there are no records to show that the property owned by the petitioners are the subject matter of any ceiling proceedings. He would alternatively contend relying on the judgments of this Court in Synudheen v. State of Kerala [2013 (1) KLT 221] and later in Jacob P.C. v. Village Officer, Ernakulam and Another [2020 (4) KHC 167] that production of ROR certificate is only optional and cannot be made mandatory and the registration officials concerned will not have jurisdiction to refuse registration on the mere ground that the party who presents the document has not produced the ROR certificate in respect of the property concerned.

3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that Exhibit P6 pending before the Tahasildar (L.R), Kottayam, can be taken up in an expeditious manner and the records as sought for can be issued.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the submissions made across the Bar, this Writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to process Ext.P6 pending before the said authority, and issue the WP(C).No.22229 OF 2020 4 Certificate as sought for, expeditiously, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE sru WP(C).No.22229 OF 2020 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.856/2014 DATED 25.6.2014 OF SRO POONJAR.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.99/2017 DATED 19.1.2017 OF SRO POONJAR.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS FOR THE YEAR 2020-2021 ON 15.10.2020 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS FOR THE YEAR 2020-2021 ON 15.10.2020 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 10.5.2019.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT ON 29.4.2019.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ON 28.12.2019 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 28.12.2019 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.01.2020.

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1.2.2020.

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14.2.2020 OF THE TAHSILDAR ADDRESSED TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER THEEKOY.

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 16.3.2020.

WP(C).No.22229 OF 2020 6

EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 16.3.2020.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court