Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: thandapper in Somanathan vs The District Collector on 11 October, 2018Matching Fragments
The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:
"1.A writ of mandamus or any other writ directing an enquiry into Exhibit P 5 complaint preferred by the writ petitioners to the second respondent and to take immediate appropriate action in Exhibit P 5 complaint.
2. To call for the records leading to changes in entry in Exhibit P4 and direct the 2 nd respondent to cancel the entries whereby thandapper of writ petitioners is changed into the name of third party.
2. Heard Sri. A. Jani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. M.R. Dhanil, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. According to the petitioners, they are absolute title holders in possession of an extent of 14.75 cents of property comprised in old survey No.10536/26 of Kollam east Village, Kollam Taluk, Kollam Revenue District as evident form Ext.P1 sale deed NO.426/1980 dated 11.2.1988 of SRO Kollam and Ext.P2 basic tax receipt dated 30.3.1988 issued by the 7th respondent Village Officer. Further that Ext.P3 encumbrance certificate dated 12.4.2017 issued by the Sub Registrar concerned would show clearly that the property presently comprised in Re-survey No.1, in Block No.15 and that no voluntary transfer of revenue registry or Revenue sale or succession has been effected in respect of that property. The complaint of the petitioner is that still as per Ext.P4 Thandapper account extract, it is shown that the aforesaid property has been transferred to the thandapper account of a third person on the basis of a alleged decision in survey adalath, S.A.No.13/1999 dated 22.7.1999 of Head Surveyor III, ALC No.5, Re-survey, Kollam. That the petitioners' consistent enquiry has revealed that the aforesaid survey office is not longer in existence and the petitioners had approached the various authorities to get a copy of the alleged order in Survey adalath S.A.No.13/1999 of dated 22.7.1999 which is mentioned in Ext.P4 thandaper account and such attempts have been fully in vain. The 5th respondent Assistant Director (RE-survey), by Ext.P6 letter dated 22.11.2017, has informed that the said resurvey office ALC No.5 has been abolished and the records are handed over to the 4th respondent District Survey Office. Further the 4th respondent District Survey Superintendent Office in turn has informed as per Ext.P7 letter dated 19.12.2017 that no such records are available with that respondent. Still further the 6th respondent Central Survey Office has informed vide Ext.P8 letter dated 5.2.2018 that the alleged file is no longer available with them and it could be with the RE-survey Office, Punalur. The petitioners made fervent enquiry with the Re- survey Office, Punalur and the said officials had informed that no such file is available with them. The petitioners would say that in all probability it is highly unlikely that the file will be with the Punalur Office as the said office has no connection whatsoever with the property which is situated in Kollam Taluk area and which is lying within the territorial limits of the Kollam Municipal Corporation. That Exts.P6 to P8 only show that the petitioners have been made to unnecessarily run from pillar to post and the alleged decision in S.A.No.13/1999 dated 22.7.1999 is highly elusive and mysterious and that in all probability it could be the product of a foul play.
4. The 1st petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 complaint dated 4.12.2017 before the 2nd respondent Tahsildar, for directions to the competent revenue officers concerned to accept the basic land tax from the 1st petitioner in respect of the above said property. The 7th respondent Village Officer has informed that as per Ext.P9 letter dated 29.5.2018, the thandapper originally instituted in the name of the petitioners has now been transferred as per the said decision dated 22.7.1999 of ALCNo.5, Re-survey etc.
1) By voluntary action of the owners, 2) By virtue of decree of Civil Courts or Revenue sales or 3) by succession. That the alleged transfer of property in Ext.P4 thandapper extract does not come within any of the permissible categories envisaged in the Transfer of Registry Rules. The petitioner would contend that the alleged order in A.L.C.13/1999 referred to in Ext.P4 is per se illegal and ultra vires and that the survey authorities have no competence of jurisdiction to direct the revenue authorities to make changes in the revenue registry etc.