Vilasini Pillai vs District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 11797 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

     FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.30633 OF 2009(Y)


PETITIONER/S:

                VILASINI PILLAI
                D/O. SARASWATHI PILLAI, AGE 67 YEARS, PUTHENPURACKAL,
                KUTTIYIL PADEETTATHIL, KOTTARKAVU MURI, MAVELIKARA,
                VILLAGE REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
                S.NARAYANAN UNNITHAN, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. SANKARAN
                UNNITHAN, SHREESAILAM, KOTTARKAVU MURI, MAVELIKARA
                VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

                BY ADV. SRI.G.ANANTHANARAYANAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA


      2         THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
                CHENGANNUR,

      3         THE THAHSILDAR MAVELIKARA.


      4         THE VILLAGE OFFICR MAVELIKARA.


      5         GEETHA.G. ARACKAL VEEDU KANDIYOOR MURI
                MAVELIKARA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

      6         LAKSHMIPRIYA PUTHENPURACKAL
                KUTTIYIL PPADEETTATHIL, KOTTARKAVU MURI,
                MAVELIKARA VILLAGE.

      7         RESUVEY SUPERINTENDANT A.L.C.
                HARIPAD.

                R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR
                R1 TO 4 AND 7 - SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE,SENIOR
                GOVERNMENTY PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD          ON
09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                      2

WP(C).No.30633 OF 2009(Y)




                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9th day of April 2021

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner

seeking to quash Ext.P11 order passed by the District

Collector, Alappuzha, dated 10.09.2009 apparently

under the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules,

1966. In fact the District Collector has found in the

order that petitioner was the owner in possession of

the property in question situated in Survey Nos. 43

and 44 and the buildings situated therein. However,

by mistake while conducting the re-survey the

properties were included in the name of Geetha,

D/o.Gourikutty Amma. Therefore, appropriate

directions were issued to the Re-survey Authority to

do the necessary within one month, consequent to the

mistake committed by the said authority.

2. In my considered opinion, whatever be the

order passed by the primary and appellate authority

under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, the

WP(C).No.30633 OF 2009(Y)

District Collector has actually found the issue in

favour of the petitioner and it was accordingly that

the aforesaid direction was issued to the Re-survey

Superintendent to correct the mistake. I am at a loss

to understand how this order can be against the

petitioner and how the petitioner is aggrieved by

this order, when in fact the direction was to rectify

the mistake within one month. This matter is pending

before this Court for the past 12 years and that too

without securing any interim orders. In that view of

the matter, I think it is only appropriate that the

writ petition is disposed of.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the

petitioner Sri.G.Ananthanarayanan, Sri.K.Sasikumar

for the 5th respondent and the learned Senior

Government Pleader Sri.Surin George Ipe and perused

the pleadings and materials on record.

4. As discussed above in fact the District

Collector has passed the order in revision under the

Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 in favour of the

petitioner holding that, it was by mistake, during

WP(C).No.30633 OF 2009(Y)

the re-survey the property belonging to the

petitioner was included in the name of the 5th

respondent, Geetha.

5. The Re-survey authority was directed to

correct the said mistake, therefore, it cannot be

said that the petitioner is in any manner aggrieved

by Ext.P11 and there is no cause of action actually

for the petitioner to file this writ petition.

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is

disposed of, directing the Re-survey authority to

implement the directions contained in Ext.P11 order

passed by the District Collector at the earliest, and

at any rate, within two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing a

notice of participation to the petitioner as well as

the 5th respondent.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE Hmh

WP(C).No.30633 OF 2009(Y)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.11.2008

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.94 OF 2003 DATED 6.3.2003 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MAVELIKKARA

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.8.2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MAVELIKKARA IN O.S.NO.94 OF 2003

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.12.2008 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10.12.2008 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.2.2009 IN P.V.A. NO.47/06

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF R.P.NO.C7-27498/09 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.4.09.

EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN ARGUMENT DATED 22.07.2009 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 22.07.2009 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.9.2009 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN R.P.NO.C7-27498/09

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL