Kerala High Court
Prameela G.L vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.15424 OF 2019(C)
PETITIONER/S:
PRAMEELA G.L,
AGED 62 YEARS,
ANEES COTTAGE, MALAPPERIKKONAM, POWDIKONAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695588.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.RAGHUNATHAN
SRI.L.SAMCHANDRA BOSE
SRI.V.M.JACOB
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695043.
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
DISTRICT COLELCTORATE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695043.
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
ULIYAZHATHURA VILLAGE, ULIYAZHATHURA, POWDIKONAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695588.
SRI.JESTIN MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.15424 OF 2019 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that by Exhibit-P1 settlement deed dated
27.01.1986, the property having an extent of 73.24 Ares, 60.69 Ares and
14.16 Ares comprised in Resurvey Nos.120/5-1, 126/1-1 and 209/7-3 in
Uliyazhatura Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk were settled in her favour
by her father Sri.Bhagyanathan George. Out of the aforesaid property,
certain items of property were the subject matter of acquisition
proceedings and some extent was sold. Now what remains in her
possession is property having an extent of 41.67 Ares, which fact is evident
from Exhibits P5 and P6 encumbrance certificates. Tax was being remitted
by her under Thandaper No.10167 and this fact is evident from Ext.P7 tax
receipt. While so, when she approached the Village Office to remit the tax
it was found that the Thandaper issued in her name was cancelled. On
further enquiry, it was revealed that by order dated 06.12.2006, the
Revenue Divisional Officer had cancelled the mutation and had restored the
land to the previous Thandaper No.1215, which incidentally is in the name
of Bhagyanathan George, the father of the petitioner herein. The petitioner
filed an application under the Right to Information Act and obtained Ext.P9
copy of the Thandaper register, wherein it is stated that it was pursuant to
orders passed by the RDO that the Thandaper was cancelled and the
Registry was restored to the previous thandaper holder. The petitioner
states that after executing the settlement deed in her favor, her father
expired on 07.09.2006 as is evident from Exhibit-P14 copy of the death
certificate. If that be the case, there is no justification on the part of the
respondents in cancelling the Thandapper. The petitioner states that
repeated complaints were lodged before the Revenue Authorities but no
action was taken. It is in the afore circumstances that she had approached
this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ
order or direction to call for the records leading to Exts.P9
cancelling Revenue Registry (Thandaper)No.T-10167 and
quash the same.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
order or direction to respondents 2, 3 and 4 to restore
Revenue Registry (Thandaper) No.(T-10167) in respect of
27.60 and 14.16 Ares of land in Resurvey No.126/1-1 and
Resurvey No.209/7-3 in Uliyazhatura Village,
Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District in
favour of petitioner and allow her to remit the revenue tax of
the said property in the Village Office, Uliyazhatura."
2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit as directed by
this Court. It is stated that Bhagyanathan George, the father of the
petitioner herein, was the owner in title and possession of large extent of
properties at Uliyazhatura Village. AFter the execution of settlement deed,
73.24 Ares in Re-sy, No.120/5-1, 60.69 Ares in Re-Sy.No.126/1 and 14.16
Ares in Sy.No.209/7 were transferred from the previous Thandapers to
Thandaper No.10167 vide PV No.828/98 dated 19.11.1998 and Order
No.LA 311237/18. However, the 3rd respondent by order dated 06.12.2006
had cancelled the above mutation and had restored the land to the
previous Thandaper in the name of Bhagyanathan George. It is further
stated that the representation submitted by the petitioner was disposed of
vide proceedings No.B18-59223/18 dated 29.5.2019 directing Tahsildar
(LR) to Survey the land, verify the records and examine possession and
right of the petitioner and if it is found that she is having possession and
ownership of the land, necessary steps be taken after hearing the legal
heirs of Sri. Bhagyanathan George.
3. I have heard Sri. B.Raghunathan, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jestin Mathew, the learned
Government Pleader.
4. It is evident from the records that Bhagyanathan George, the
original owner of the property is the father of the petitioner and it was by
Ext.P1 settlement deed dated 27.1.1986, rights over the properties were
settled in favour of the petitioner. From Ext.P7 tax receipt, it is evident
that the petitioner had been remitting tax in respect of the property and
that too in Thandaper No.10167. From the statement filed by the 2nd
respondent it is evident that the Thandaper was changed vide PV No.828
of 98 dated 19.11.1998 and order No.LA 311237/18. The father of the
petitioner had passed away on 7.9.2006 and this fact is evident from
Ext.P14 death certificate. It is borne out from Ext.P9 and also the
statement filed by the 2nd respondent that it was by order dated
6.12.2006 that the mutation in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and
the land was restored to the previous Thandaper.
5. Rule 3 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 details the
manner in which transfer of registry can be effected. It can be by way of
voluntary transfer of title, transfers by decrees of civil courts or revenue
sales and transfers due to succession. In the case on hand, registry was
transferred to the name of the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1
settlement deed. However, no reasons are stated by the respondents as to
how the transfer of registry was restored back to the previous thandaper
holder that too after his death. Furthermore, the respondents have no
case that the petitioner was heard before the Thandaper was restored to
the previous holder. In that view of the matter, there is considerable merit
in the contention of the petitioner that the cancellation of registry in favour
of the petitioner was an illegal exercise and against the provisions of law.
6. From the statement filed by the 2nd respondent it appears
that an order has been passed on 29.5.2019 directing the Tahsildar (LR),
Thiruvananthapuram to survey the land, verify the records and examine
her possession and if it is found that she is in possession to initiate
appropriate proceedings to solve her grievance, but after hearing the legal
heirs of Bhagyanathan. I am of the considered opinion that the order so
issued cannot be sustained. When Ext.P7 reveals that the petitioner was in
title and possession and that she was remitting tax, the respondents could
not have cancelled the mutation without following the procedure under the
Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. As the cancellation of the registry has
been found to be illegal and irregular, there was no justification on the part
of the 2nd respondent to direct the Tahsildar to hear the legal heirs of late
Sri. Bhagyanathan before proceeding to restore back the registry in the
name of the petitioner.
7. Having considered the entire facts, the order passed by the 3rd
respondent dated 6.12.2006 cancelling the mutation and effecting
restoration of land to the previous thandaper number will stand quashed.
The respondents are directed to restore the Thandaper No.10167 granted
in favour of the petitioner in respect of property having an extent of 27.60
Ares in Re-sy. No.126/1-1 and 14.16 Ares in Re-sy. No.209/7-3 of
Ulliyazhathura Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. Necessary orders shall
be passed expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from
the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
DSV
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.298/86 DATED
27.1.1986.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
DATED 10.3.1998.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SITE SKETCH.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
07.11.1998.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 12.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 3.9.2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
11.11.2006.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.1.2014.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THANDAPER NO.10167.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION/COMPLAINT
NO.59223/B-18/17 DATED 29.08.2017.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION/COMPLAINT
NO.59223/B18/217 DATED 11.10.2018.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.2.2019.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 15.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED
17.05.2014.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONARE DATED
12.03.2019 AND ITS ANSWER.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.33/19 DATED
22.1.2019 OF 4TH RESPONDENT TO 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
