Sameer vs The Tahsildar
2021 Latest Caselaw 11354 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

    THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.29006 OF 2020(A)


PETITIONER/S:

                SAMEER,
                AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.AMEEDU KUTTY, VATTATHARA HOUSE,
                MUZHANGODI MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE,
                KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
                REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
                ARIFABEEVI, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.AMEEDU KUTTY,
                VATTATHARA HOUSE, MUZHANGODI MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM
                VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

                BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE TAHSILDAR
                TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPALLY-690519.

      2         VILLAGE OFFICER,
                KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE OFFICE,
                KARUNAGAPALLY-690519.

      3         ABDUL SALEEM,
                S/O.AMEEDU KUTTY, MUZHANGODI MURI,
                THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE,
                KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690523.


                SMT MABLE C KURIAN, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.29006 OF 2020(A)            2




                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims that he is in absolute possession and enjoyment

of property having an extent of 1.21 Ares falling in Re Survey No.87/1/2 of

Kallelibhagom Village which was acquired on the strength of Exhibit P1 sale

deed. The 3rd respondent is the brother of the petitioner. He has lodged a

complaint before the 2nd respondent contending that the petitioner is not

entitled to obtain transfer of registry effected in his favor in respect of the

above item of property. The said complaint was forwarded by the 2nd

respondent to the 1st respondent herein as is evident from Exhibit P2. It is

stated by the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has also lodged Exhibit P3

complaint before the 1st respondent and the same is pending. Though

Exhibit P4 notice was issued by the 1st respondent to the counsel for the

petitioner, he has not finalised the proceedings. The limited prayer of the

petitioner is to issue directions to the 1st respondent to finalise the

proceedings and to pass an order enabling the transfer of registry to the

name of the petitioner in respect of property covered under Exhibit P1

within a time frame.

2. I have heard Sri.K.Shaj, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent

Nos.1 and 2. Though notice was issued to the 3rd respondent by special

messenger, from the report of the serving officer it is apparent that he

evaded on seeing the officer.

3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the

submissions made across the bar, I direct the 1st respondent to take up the

application filed by the petitioner seeking to effect mutation and to conclude

the proceedings with notice to the petitioner and the objector, if any,

expeditiously, at any rate within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment.

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the

judgment before the 1st respondent to ensure compliance.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE sru

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2188/2019 OF KARUNAGAPALLY ADDITIONAL SRO.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 4.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 1.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.D6/11395/19 DATED 20.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE