Dileep Kumar.M.G Vs. the Tahsildar

Dileep Kumar.M.G vs The Tahsildar

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 28, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1142513

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1142513
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice a.M.Shaffique
Decided On: May 28, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dileep Kumar.M.G

Respondent

The Tahsildar

Excerpt

.....munsiff's court, kodungaloor with reference to the aforesaid suit stating that the injunction granted against certain item of property has been vacated. the petitioner therefore submitted a fresh application along with ext. p3 judgment and still no orders have been passed and accordingly he has to approach this court.2. the learned government pleader, on instructions, would submit that another suit o.s. no. 1451/2000 has been filed by the transferee's son and execution proceedings are pending in the said case.3. it is clear from ext. p1 that the petitioner has purchased the property in question from one kesavan. as w.p(c) no. 1999 of 2014 -:2. :- long as there is no prohibitory order from any court of law to effect mutation, the property is entitled to mutation in his name. pendency of a civil suit will not preclude the revenue authorities in effecting mutation. mutation is basically for fiscal purposes and to collect tax from the owner of the property who is in possession.4. as matters stand now, since the petitioner has acquired right in respect of the property from kesavan, who is the previous title holder, the revenue authorities are liable to effect mutation, which will, of course, be subject to the result of any directions issued by a civil court. if, on a later date, it is found that kesavan has no title to the property and it vests with another person and the sale deed ext. p1 is found to be invalid, it shall be always open for the revenue authorities to make necessary correction in the mutation entries in terms of the provisions of transfer of registry rules. under these circumstances, i am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent to effect mutation in respect of the property covered by ext. p1 in the name of the petitioner, which shall be done within a period of w.p(c) no. 1999 of 2014 -:3. :- two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE28H DAY OF MAY20147TH JYAISHTA, 1936 WP(C).No. 1999 of 2014 (Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DILEEP KUMAR.M.G, S/O.GOPINATHAN, MANALIKKATTIL, P.O PUTHENCHIRA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.RAJESH, SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -680 599.

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUTHENCHIRA, P.O PUTHENCHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680 682.

3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, MALA, P.O MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680 732. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.K. SHERIN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2805-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. W.P.(C).NO.1999/2014 - Y: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED195.11 NUMBERED218811 OF MALA SUB REGISTRY OFFICE. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED117.12 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED24.12 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR IN O.S22411. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED57.12 ISSUED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR TO THE3D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED2211.12 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. A.M. Shaffique, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 1999 of 2014 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th day of May, 2014.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P2 by which his request for mutation of the property purchased by him as per Sale Deed No. 2188/2011 of Mala Sub Registry Office, has been refused by the 2nd respondent without stating any specific reason.

2. According to the petitioner, on further enquiry, it was understood that the son of the transferee has filed a suit challenging transfer as O.S. No. 224/2011, which came to be dismissed. The petitioner also relies upon Ext. P4, a communication issued from the Munsiff's Court, Kodungaloor with reference to the aforesaid suit stating that the injunction granted against certain item of property has been vacated. The petitioner therefore submitted a fresh application along with Ext. P3 judgment and still no orders have been passed and accordingly he has to approach this Court.

2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that another suit O.S. No. 1451/2000 has been filed by the transferee's son and execution proceedings are pending in the said case.

3. It is clear from Ext. P1 that the petitioner has purchased the property in question from one Kesavan. As W.P(C) No. 1999 of 2014 -:

2. :- long as there is no prohibitory order from any court of law to effect mutation, the property is entitled to mutation in his name. Pendency of a civil suit will not preclude the revenue authorities in effecting mutation. Mutation is basically for fiscal purposes and to collect tax from the owner of the property who is in possession.

4. As matters stand now, since the petitioner has acquired right in respect of the property from Kesavan, who is the previous title holder, the revenue authorities are liable to effect mutation, which will, of course, be subject to the result of any directions issued by a civil court. If, on a later date, it is found that Kesavan has no title to the property and it vests with another person and the sale deed Ext. P1 is found to be invalid, it shall be always open for the revenue authorities to make necessary correction in the mutation entries in terms of the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent to effect mutation in respect of the property covered by Ext. P1 in the name of the petitioner, which shall be done within a period of W.P(C) No. 1999 of 2014 -:

3. :- two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which will be subject to any decision that may be taken in any pending civil proceedings. Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge. Tds/

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Dileep Kumar.M.G vs The Tahsildar Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice a.M.Shaffique