Kerala High Court
Pradeepkumar vs The Tahsildar on 6 June, 2016
Author: Shaji P. Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/22ND ASWINA, 1938
WP(C).No. 30963 of 2016 (U)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
PRADEEPKUMAR,
S/O BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, ILAMANNU HOUSE,
ALA P.O, PERISSERY,CHENGANNUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, CHENGANNUR 689 121.
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, PULIYOOR, 689 121.
3. PRESIDENT,
KERALA KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY,
BR NO 1207, THRIPEROORKULANGARA SRI. SUBRAHMANYA SWAMY
TEMPLE, PERISSERRY P.O, CHENGANNUR 689 121.
4. R.D.O,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHENGANNUR 689 121.
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 30963 of 2016 (U)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DOCUMENT NO 987/I/2016 DATED
06-06-2016 REGISTERED IN SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, CHENGANNUR.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07-06-2016 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24-10-2005 IN OS 373/02
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 07-06-2016 PREFERRED TO
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 13-07-2016 IN WP(C) NO 23320/2016
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
22-08-2016
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DOCUMENT NO 2160/1999 OF
CHENGANNUR SRO.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 12-06-2015 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 12-06-2015 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
dlk
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
----------------------------
W.P.(C) No.30963 of 2016
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner obtained 2.65 Ares of properties comprising in Resurvey No. 272/11/1 and 272/11/2 of Puliyoor village as per Ext.P1 sale deed. Thereafter, petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for effecting mutation. Third respondent preferred a suit against the predecessors of the property for declaration and recovery of possession. The above suit was dismissed, evident from Ext.P3 judgment. According to the petitioner, proceedings as per Ext.P3 judgment is concluded, since there is no appeal preferred by the third respondent. Third respondent and committee members preferred complaints before the revenue authorities against mutation. As per Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2. But, according to the petitioner, first respondent without considering the legal and factual aspects issued Ext.P6 order stating that, additional W.P.(C) No.30963 of 2016 2 Government Pleader has informed that proceedings need not be initiated on the application of the petitioner and as per legal opinion mutation cannot effected. It is in this background challenging Ext.P6 and for other appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth.
3. The sole question to be considered is whether any interference is required to Ext.P6 order passed by the first respondent. On a reading of Ext.P6 the first respondent has arrived at a conclusion on the basis of the advise of the District Government Pleader stating that, since the suit is pending, unless and until the dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent is settled, mutation need not be effected. It is also stated that, the prior mutations effected, cannot also be sustained, since the predecessors in interest of the property has not secured any declaration with respect to the title perfected by adverse possession. On a perusal of W.P.(C) No.30963 of 2016 3 Ext.P3 judgment it is clear, the suit filed by the third respondent is dismissed on 24.10.2005, and therefore, the same cannot have any bearing on the application submitted by the petitioner for effecting mutation. Since effecting mutation is a subject matter of adjudication by the first respondent as per the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules, it should be an independent adjudication irrespective of any advise provided by the District Government Pleader. From a reading of Ext.P6 I am satisfied that, the first respondent has proceeded with the application of the petitioner on the basis of the advise provided by the District Government Pleader, which cannot be sustained. An application under the Transfer of Registry Rules is to be considered as per the provisions of the said Rules, that is not done. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that Ext.P6 is bad in law. Since Rule 11 of the said Rules provides for adjudication when there is a serious dispute for effecting mutation of the property, the said exercise is to be undertaken by the first respondent.
4. Taking note of the respective submissions made W.P.(C) No.30963 of 2016 4 across the Bar, I am satisfied that a direction can be issued to the first respondent to re-consider the issue after providing an opportunity of hearing to the third respondent also.
5. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to take on Board Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner and reconsider the same, in accordance with law and as provided under the Transfer of Registry Rules, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the third respondent, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
6. Needless to say, petitioner as well as the third respondent will be at liberty to canvass any proposition of law laid down by this Court in respect of the transfer of registry. I make it clear, I have not expressed any opinion on merits.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY,JUDGE dlk/14/10/