Kerala High Court
K.S.Rajeev vs The Additional Tahsildar on 15 March, 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/20TH PHALGUNA, 1935
WP(C).No. 10491 of 2013 (J)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
1. K.S.RAJEEV, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O.LATE THANKAMANI, GOVINDA GARDENS,
VAYALAR KIZHAKKU, VAYALAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
2. K.S.RENJITH, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O.LATE THANKAMANI, GOVINDA GARDENS,
VAYALAR KIZHAKKU VAYALAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
3. K.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O.LATE THANKAMANI, GOVINDA GARDENS,
VAYALAR KIZHAKKU VAYALAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
4. MUKUNDALAL SAMBATH, AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O.LATE THANKAMANI, GOVINDA GARDENS
VAYALAR KIZHAKKU VAYALAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
5. LEKHA SUDHAKARAN, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.LATE THANKAMANI, GOVINDA GARDENS,
VAYALAR KIZHAKKU VAYALAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.R.RAJESH
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, VAIKKOM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VECHUR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
* ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED:
R3. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KOTTAYAM,
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
*ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER PASSED ON 11.3.2014 IN IA NO.13743
OF 2013.
R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 10491 of 2013 (J)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/03/2006 OF MUNSIFF'S
COURT, ETTUMANOOR IN O.S 42/2002.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICTION DATED 29/05/2012 FOR EFFECTING
MUTATION.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23/01/2013 SENT BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.1997 PASSED BY THE TALUK
LAND BOARD, KOTTAYAM.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
---------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
VPV
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C).No.10491 of 2013
---------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the children of late Thankamma, the plaintiff in O.S.No.42 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Ettumannor. O.S.No.42 of 2002 was instituted by her for declaration of title and possession over 75.995 cents of land situate in survey No.492/25, 492/27 and 492/28 of Vechur Village, Vaikkom Taluk, Kottayam District. After the suit was instituted, she died. Thereupon the petitioners and their father were impleaded as additional plaintiffs 2 to 7. Later their father also passed away. The suit instituted by the petitioners' mother was decreed after trial by Ext.P1 judgment delivered on 15.3.2006. The said judgment has attained finality. After the judgment attained finality, the petitioners moved the second respondent, Tahsildar to effect mutation in the revenue records. The second respondent thereupon took the stand that as a civil suit was involved, the first respondent should give permission to effect mutation in the revenue records. The first petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P2 application dated 29.5.2012 before the first respondent Tahsildar to effect mutation in the W.P.(C)No.10491 of 2013 2 revenue records. The first respondent thereupon sent Ext.P3 letter dated 23.1.2013 pointing out that a portion of the land is involved in ceiling case initiated against Kumaran Narayanan and therefore his application for effecting mutation can be considered only after the ceiling case is disposed of. In this writ petition the petitioners pray for an order directing the respondents to effect mutation in the revenue records by allowing Ext.P2 application.
2. A counter affidavit dated 28.5.2013 has been filed on behalf of the first respondent Tahsildar. In paragraph 3 he has stated that though O.S.No.42 of 2002 was decreed by the Court of the Munsiff of Ettumanoor, on enquiry conducted from his office it was revealed that the said properties are included in a ceiling case initiated against Sri.Kumaran Narayanan. In paragraph 5 he has stated that it was on account of the aforesaid reason that the mutation has not been effected. The second respondent has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 4.7.2013. In paragraph 3 thereof he has stated that Ceiling Case No.TLB 664/73/KTM is pending in respect of the properties situate in Sy.Nos.492/25, 27 and 28 of Vechoor Village and therefore, the revenue officials are not in a position to effect mutation. He has also stated that the application submitted W.P.(C)No.10491 of 2013 3 by the first petitioner will be considered after ceiling case is disposed of.
3. I heard Sri.V.R.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.K.C.Vincent, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 stipulates that the summary enquiry and decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes and does not affect the legal rights of any person in respect of the lands covered by the decisions in transfer of registry cases. It is also stated that the question of legal rights is always subject to adjudication by civil courts and pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with judicial decisions.
4. From the stand taken by the respondents it is evident that they have declined to act on Ext.P2 application on the short ground that the lands belonging to the petitioners are included in Ceiling Case No.TLB 664/73/KTM pending before the Land Tribunal, Kottayam. The petitioners are not parties to the said case. The ceiling case is one initiated against Sri.Kumaran Narayanan. In such circumstances and also for the reason that mutation is only an W.P.(C)No.10491 of 2013 4 arrangement for fiscal purposes and does not involve an adjudication of the civil rights of parties, I am of the opinion that the respondents should effect mutation in the revenue records and receive land tax from the petitioners. Such arrangement would in no way prejudice the rights of the State under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 to proceed against Sri.Kumaran Narayanan or the properties over which the petitioners claim rights if such properties are liable to be proceeded against under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.
I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority among the respondents to effect mutation in the revenue records by passing appropriate orders on Ext.P2 application without waiting for the disposal of Ceiling Case No.TLB 664/73/KTM referred to above. Needful in the matter shall be done and mutation effected, expeditiously and in any event within an outer limit of one month from the date on which the petitioners produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE vpv