Kerala High Court
P.Sreedharan vs A.P.Mohanan on 15 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.16089 OF 2020(I)
PETITIONERS:
1 P.SREEDHARAN,
AGED 75 YEARS,
S/O.LATE CHEKKUTTY, PARAPPOYIL,
ERAVANNORE (P.O.), KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673 585.
2 K.T.UNNIKRISHNAN,
AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O.LATE KARAPPAN, PRANAVAM, AREEKKAL,
NARIKKUNI (P.O.), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
3 PREMELA KUMARI N.M.,
AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O.K.T.UNNIKRISHNAN, PRANAVAM, AREEKKAL,
NARIKKUNI (P.O.), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)
SRI.PRASANTH M.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 A.P.MOHANAN,
AGED 70, S/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, KARTHIKA,
KOTTULI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 316.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MADAVOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, MADAVOOR (P.O.),
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 001.
3 THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE TALUK,
CIVIL STATION (P.O.), KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673 020.
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION (P.O.),
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020.
WP(C).No.16089 OF 2020 2
5 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SMT.VAISAKHI V.
SMT. MABLE C KURIAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.16089 OF 2020 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners state that they are the absolute owners in title and
possession of various items of property comprised in Re-Sy.No.39 of
Madavoor Village. According to them, they have planted rubber and are
taking yield therefrom.
2. It is contended that the 1st respondent herein filed W.P.(C)
No.25328 of 2011 before this Court contending that they are the absolute
owners of an item of property covered by sale deed No. 1219 of 2000 and
that the revenue authorities are refusing to receive tax from the
petitioners. They also sought for a direction to demarcate the properties
covered under the sale deed. The petitioners 1 and 3 were made parties
to the writ petition.
3. By a common judgment dated 20.2.2018, the writ petitions
were disposed of by this Court, the operative portion of which reads as
follows:
"4. Considering the various issues involved in regard to the title
of the parties, it is appropriate for the petitioners to invoke a civil
remedy or file a proper application either in Form No.8 or in Form
No.10 under the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act. If the
petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25328 of 2011 files an application either in
Form No.8 or in Form No.10, certainly the authorities shall consider
whether the petitioners are the registered holder or not and they
shall also consider the title of the additional respondents as well. If
the authorities are of the view that complicated question of title
cannot be resolved through the process under the Kerala Surveys
and Boundaries Act, certainly, it shall drop all further proceedings by
relegating the parties to invoke the civil remedies. I have not
decided anything related to the merits of the rival claims made by
the parties. It is for the authorities to decide whether the survey
can be conducted based on the rival claims made by the parties in
respect of the title."
4. The petitioners contend that the respondents neither invoked
the civil remedy nor did they file an application under Form 8 or Form 10
of the Survey and Boundaries Rules. However, the 3rd respondent
proceeded to comply with the directions and passed Ext.P3 order wherein
he went on to hold that the petitioners failed to prove their title or
possession over the property. Directions were issued to the subordinate
officers that in respect of property covered in Re-Sy. No.36, transfer of
registry can be effected in favour of the legal heirs of late Sri. Bhaskaran.
There was a further direction to the Village Officer to look into the title
deeds and prior deeds of Smt. Swapna Vijayan, Smt. Prameela
Unnikrishnan, Smt. Premalatha Sadhananthan and to ascertain whether
they have obtained title through Kavya to Padmavathi Amma and if it was
found so, to permit them to remit tax. The parties were directed to
produce the records before the Village Officer. However, it was stated in
the order itself that if the parties have any grievance, they could very well
approach the Civil court as ordered by this Court.
5. The petitioners contend that the 3rd respondent has clearly
violated the directions issued by this Court. No authority was granted to
him to decide on the title and possession of the petitioners in the manner
that he has done. Nowhere in Ext.P3 has the 3rd respondent considered
the rights of the 1st respondent herein. According to them, the
documents produced by the petitioners were not even considered by the
Tahsildar and Ext.P3 order is vitiated by non- application of mind.
6. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioners are before
this Court seeking to quash Ext.P3 and also for a further direction to the
respondents 2 to 4 to accept land tax from the petitioners.
7. I have heard Sri. R. Bindhu Sasthamangalam, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Smt. Mable C. Kurian, the
learned Government Pleader and Sri.Babu Karukapadath, the learned
counsel for the 1st respondent.
8. While disposing of the earlier writ petition, the 3rd respondent
was directed to look into the matter and take a decision. It was subject to
the rider that if complicated questions of title cannot be resolved through
the process under the Survey and Boundaries Act and Rules framed
thereunder, the authorities shall drop all further proceedings and relegate
the parties to invoke the civil remedies. It has come out from the
submissions that the 1st petitioner has preferred O.S.No.261 of 2020 and
the petitioners 2 and 3 have preferred O.S.No.260 of 2020 before the
jurisdictional civil court and the same are pending.
9. The authorities conferred with powers under the Transfer of
Registry Rules, 1966, are not required to determine the disputed questions
of title. Under Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, the summary
enquiry and decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes
and does not affect the legal rights of any person in respect of the lands
covered by the decisions in Transfer of Registry cases. The question of
legal right is always subject to adjudication by civil courts and pattas will
be revised from time to time in accordance with judicial decisions.
10. Now that the petitioners have already approached the civil
court for establishing their rights, it is for the parties to raise all their
contentions in the suit. The civil court will not be burdened with the
conclusions arrived at by the 3rd respondent while passing Ext.P3 order. It
was merely a summary enquiry. Prima facie, I am also of the view that
the entire aspects of the matter was not considered by the 3rd
respondent. The findings therein will have no effect over the rights of the
petitioners or the contesting respondents over the disputed property. In
that view of the matter, I direct the parties to raise their contentions
before the civil court and get their rights adjudicated untrammelled by any
of the findings in Ext.P3 order.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
IAP
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY
THE RUBBER BOARD.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.25328/2011
DATED 20/02/2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 DATED 17/07/2020.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
