IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 10527 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 K.S.GEORGE, AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.DEVASIA, KALAYATHINAL HOUSE, THEKKUMBAGHAM KARA,
THEKKUMBAGHAM P.O, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 585.
2 JESSY, AGED 59 YEARS W/O.K.S.GEORGE, KALAYATHINAL
HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGHAM KARA, THEKKUMBAGHAM P.O, KARIKODE
VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 585.
3 ARUN BABU,AGED 36 YEARS
S/O K.S.GEORGE, KALAYATHINAL HOUSE, THEKKUMBAGHAM KARA
THEKKUMBAGHAM P.O, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 585.
BY ADVS.
GEORGE MATHEW
M.D.SASIKUMARAN
PRAVEEN S.
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
DIPU JAMES
MATHEW K.T.
GEORGE K.V.
STEPHY K REGI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU.P.O, IDUKKI-685 603
3 THE TAHASILDAR (LR)
TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION , THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI
DISTRICT-685 584.
4 THE TALUK SURVEYOR,
THODUPUZHA TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION , THODUPUZHA,
WP(C) NO. 10527 OF 2022
2
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 585.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, KARIKODE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI
DISTRICT-685 584
SR GP SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10527 OF 2022
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners seek that the competent respondent be directed to effect transfer of Registry of the property covered by Exts.P1,P3 and P5 in their favour, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. The petitioners say that the findings in Ext.P7 proceedings of the Tahsildar - Land Records is in error and therefore, that the transfer of Registry, as requested by them, ought to be effected without adverting to the same.
2. The afore submissions of the petitioners were controverted by the learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.K.Amminikutty, saying that there is difference between the extent of the property claimed by the petitioners and what is reflected in the records. She added that, therefore, the competent respondent has now sought a survey of WP(C) NO. 10527 OF 2022 4 the properties, for which purpose, the petitioners have been issued notice and that their request can be finalised only after the said proceedings are completed.
3. In reply, Sri.A.G.Sunilkumar - learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, in Ext.P7, there is an apparent discord with respect to the extent of the properties involved because, it has not taken into account Ext.P5 Sale Deed. He submitted that if all the three Sale Deeds are accounted for, there will be no difference in the extent.
4. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is clear that what is projected before this Court is disputation of facts, which cannot be resolved affirmatively while I act under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. However, since the learned Senior Government Pleader says that the extent claimed by the petitioners is not reflected in the WP(C) NO. 10527 OF 2022 5 records, which is controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on Ext.P6 report of the Taluk Surveyor, to assert that Ext.P7 does not take into account all the three documents, I am of the view that this matter requires to be reconsidered by the Tahsildar (Land Records) appropriately, after hearing the petitioners and after assessing their documents.
6. That said, normally, when a citizen approaches the Tahsildar for the purpose of effecting transfer of Registry, survey may not be necessary, though it is within his jurisdiction to conduct necessary inspection and verify the physical attributes of the properties concerned.
In the afore perspective, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P7; with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar to reconsider the matter, after WP(C) NO. 10527 OF 2022 6 hearing the petitioners and after examining Exts.P1, P3 and P5 - on the touchstone of Ext.P7 report of the Taluk Surveyor - and to complete proceedings, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
I make it clear that if, during the afore exercise, the 3rd respondent is desirous of conducting measurement of properties and assessing its attributes, he will be at liberty to do so, for which purpose, a survey will not be insisted, though other applicable methods can be followed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS WP(C) NO. 10527 OF 2022 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10527/2022 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DOC. NO. 4043 OF 1993 DTD.
30.12.1993 OF KARIKODE SRO.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.2890877 DTD. 08.06.2011 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF DOC. NO.1242 OF 1994 DTD.
30.03.1994 OF KARIKODE SRO.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO. 2890878 DTD. 08.06.2011 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF DOC.NO. 1601 OF 2003 DTD.19.05.2003 OF KARIKODE SRO. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO. K4-1152-B/13 DTD.12.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY NO. H1-19278/2017 DTD.20.11.2019 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. H1-19278/17 DTD 15.02.2022 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 3RD RESPONDENT.