Abdul Majeed vs The Village Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 3307 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

      FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942

                     WP(C).No.25428 OF 2020(C)


PETITIONER(S):

             ABDUL MAJEED,
             AGED 44 YEARS,
             S/O.HAMZA, PERUMPALA, KARUVARAKUNDU,
             THARIS, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676523.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.K.R.VINOD
             SMT.M.S.LETHA
             KUM.K.S.SREEREKHA
             SRI.NABIL KHADER

RESPONDENT(S) :

      1      THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
             KERALA ESTATE VILLAGE,
             KERALA ESTATE P.O., PIN-676525.

      2      THE TAHSILDAR,
             NILAMBUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,
             NILAMBUR, PIN-679329.



             SMT MABLE C KURIAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
29.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.25428 OF 2020(C)                  2




                               JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~ The petitioner herein is the absolute owner in title and

possession of property having an extent of 0.4047 hectares comprised

in Re.Sy. No.55/4/2 and 0.1113 hectares comprised in Re.Sy. No.55/4

in Block No. 157 of the Kerala Estate Village, Nilambur Taluk. The

petitioner states that the above properties were purchased by the

petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1 sale deed.

2. The petitioner contends that the previous owner of the

property was one Chandran and after his death, the property devolved

on his wife and children. When the Village Officer refused to effect

mutation in their favour and permit them to remit tax, they approached

this Court and filed W.P.(C) Nos.16534/2019 and 16494/2019. This

Court, by judgment dated 23.7.2019, disposed of the writ petitions

observing as follows:

"The petitioners purchased the property which is forming

part of Kerala Estate Village. The petitioner approached the

Revenue Authority to effect transfer of registry. It appears

that alleging purchase was in violation of the Land Reforms

Act, the request for transfer of registry was rejected. If

there is any violation of the provisions under the Land

Reforms Act, the authorities are free to proceed against the

property in accordance with law. The transfer of registry is

for fiscal purposes. Therefore, the State is free to proceed

against the property for any violation under the Land

Reforms Act.

With liberty as above, the Village Officer is directed to effect

transfer of registry, without any delay, at any rate, within

one month."

3. After effecting mutation as aforesaid, the petitioner purchased

the property as stated above. He then submitted an application to

effect transfer of the registry and to pay tax. His grievance is that the

1st respondent refused to accept the application on the ground that

the property is situated in Kerala Estate Village. It is the afore

circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking a

direction to the 1st respondent to accept the application submitted by

the petitioner for effecting mutation in respect of the property covered

under Ext.P1 sale deed in an expeditious manner.

4. Sri. K.R. Vinod, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would refer to Exhibit P4 and P5 judgments of this Court and

it was argued that there is no justification on the part of the

respondents in rejecting the application and in transferring the registry

in his name.

5. Smt. Mable C. Kurian, the learned Government Pleader, has

opposed the prayer. However, it is fairly submitted that this Court has

granted relief to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and they

have remitted tax.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced.

7. It is by now settled that effecting of mutation and acceptance

of basic land tax will not result in the conferment of title. If there is any

violation of the provisions of any of the statutes, the authorities can

very well proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law.

The petitioner is entitled to the benefit as has been granted to the

petitioners in Exts.P4 and P5, they being the previous owners.

8. Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the

petitioner to approach the 1st respondent and to file a fresh application

under Form 1A of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, and seek for

mutation with supporting documents. If such an application is filed, the

competent among the respondents shall consider the same, if it is in

order, and effect transfer of registry, at any rate, within a period of

three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The

land tax offered by the petitioner shall also be accepted.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1/1431/2020 OF SRO KARUVARAKUNDU, EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, DATED 18.09.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.662/I/2019 OF SRO KARUVARAKUNDU, EXECUTED BY THE 3 DAUGHTERS OF LATE MR.CHANDRAN, IN FAVOUR OF THEIR MOTHER, DATED 22.03.2019.

EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.661/I/2019 OF SRO KARUVARAKUNDU, EXECUTED BY THE WIFE OF LATE MR.CHANDRAN, IN FAVOUR OF HER 3 DAUGHTERS, DATED 22.03.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.16534/2019, DATED 23.07.2019.

EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C)NO.16494/2019, DATED 23.07.2019.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE