Sali Benny vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17690 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 5TH BHADRA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 16972 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

            SALI BENNY, AGED 49 YEARS,
            W/O. K.A. BENNY, THOKKUPARA KARA, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE,
            IDUKKI DISTRICT-685565.

            BY ADV. N.M.VARGHESE


RESPONDENTS:

    1       STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (R) DEPARTMENT,
            SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

    2       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
            IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI.

    3       THE TAHSILDAR,
            DEVIKULAM TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI
            DISTRICT-685613.

    4       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
            PALLIVASAL VILLAGE, PALLIVASAL P.O.,
            IDUKKI DISTRICT-685565.

            BY ADV.SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR, SPECIAL G.P.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 16972 OF 2021
                                       -2-

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

seeking that the 3rd and 4th respondents be directed

to effect mutation of the property covered by

Ext.P1 sale deed in her favour within a time frame

to be fixed by this Court.

2. The learned Special Government Pleader -

Sri.M.H.Hanil Kumar, however, submitted that the

competent respondent has not yet declined to

effect mutation, but that he is conducting an

enquiry because a complaint has been received from

a 3rd party with respect to the property in

question. He submitted that, therefore, if this

Court is so inclined, the 3rd respondent -

Tahsildar, will hear the petitioner, as also any

other complainant and then take a final decision

on the application of the former, for mutation of

the property.

WP(C) NO. 16972 OF 2021

3. When I hear the learned Special Government

Pleader as afore, it becomes without doubt that

the 3rd respondent is statutorily obligated to

consider the request of the petitioner, after

following due procedure. Obviously, therefore, if

there is any complaint made, then such

complainant/s also have to be heard.

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered,

directing the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar, to

immediately hear the petitioner, as also any other

person who may have raised any complaint with

respect to the property in question; and then take

a final decision as to the application of the

former for mutation of the property in question in

her favour.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the

3rd respondent, as expeditiously as is possible,

but not later than one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. WP(C) NO. 16972 OF 2021

This writ petition is thus disposed of.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 16972 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16972/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO. 41/2021 DATED 07/01/2021 EXECUTED AT SRO, DEVIKULAM IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 A PHOTOCOPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 22/02/2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 A PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.4690576 DATED 20/08/2020 IN THANDAPER NO. 11/823 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SMT. AMMINI RAJAN, THE SELLER IN EXHIBIT P1.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE