Ashna Sidhiq vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 13411 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 13411 Ker
Judgement Date : 28 June, 2021

Kerala High Court

Ashna Sidhiq vs The State Of Kerala on 28 June, 2021

WP(C) NO. 1770 OF 2021            1



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
      MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 1770 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

              ASHNA SIDHIQ
              AGED 29 YEARS
              W/O. AHMED KABEER REBAI K, KANDATHINKARAYIL HOUSE,
              UPPUTHARA P.O, UPPUTHARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 505

              BY ADV ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN



RESPONDENT/S:

      1       THE STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
              GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
              SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

      2       THE STATE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR,
              GOVERNMENT LAND RESUMPTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695
              001.

      3       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
              IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI-685 603.

      4       THE TAHSILDAR,
              PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685538

      5       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
              UPPUTHARA, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 505

OTHER PRESENT:

              SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN, GP

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 1770 OF 2021               2


                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                 --------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C.) No.1770 of 2021
                    --------------------------------------
                Dated this the 28th day of May, 2021


                               JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following

prayers :

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 4 and 5 to issue genuinity certificate to the petitioner with respect to the property covered by Ext.P1 within a time frame as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant;

(ii) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. According to the petitioner, she is in possession

and enjoyment of 4 ares 05 sq.mtrs. of property comprised in

old survey No. 338 of Upputhara Village, Peermade Taluk.

The petitioner purchased the above property on 6.8.2020 as

per Ext.P1 sale deed from one A.V.Antony. Earlier when, there

was some dispute about the acceptance of land tax, the former

owner of the property, Mr.A.V.Antony approached this Court

and this Court as per Ext.P2 judgment allowed the prayers of

Mr.Antony. The relevant portion of the above judgment is

extracted hereunder :

"From Ext.P1, it is apparent that the petitioner herein has absolute title in respect of the property covered under Ext.P1. He has also been permitted to remit tax albeit provisionally in view of G.O.(MS) 172/2019/REV dated 6.6.2019. This Court has held that proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act cannot be invoked and if the Government disputes the title of the persons such as the petitioner who has valid title over the property, the State has to institute appropriate civil proceedings to establish its title. Until the civil court holds against the petitioner on the basis of evidence let in, no embargo can be placed on their rights to enjoy their property or in dealing with the same. This is the view taken by this Court in Ext.P8 and P9. I respectfully concur with the above view. In that view of the matter, I direct the 5th respondent to permit the petitioner to effect mutation over the property and also to issue Location Sketch, RoR, Possession Certificate without making any adverse endorsements. However, it is made clear that the above order will be subject to adjudication on title, if any, instituted by the State."

3. Now, the petitioner purchased the property from

the above mentioned Antony. According to the petitioner,

since the property is situated in Idukki District, a genuinity

certificate is necessary. The authorities are not issuing the

same. The Government Pleader, after getting instructions

submitted that usually genuinity certificate will be issued for

'patta land'. The Government Pleader submitted that the

respondents are taking steps to file a civil suit to establish

the title of the property. This Court as per Ext.P2 judgment

granted liberty for the same.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the genuinity

certificate is not issued. According to him, it is necessary for

enjoying the property. If the petitioner wants the genuinity

certificate for her property, she can submit a representation

before the 5th respondent. If such a representation is received by

the 5th respondent, the 5th respondent should consider the same

and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, this writ petition can be

disposed of with following directions :

1) The petitioner is free to file a representation before the 5th

respondent for getting a genuinity certificate for her

property.

2) If such a representation is received from the petitioner

within one month from today, the 5th respondent will

consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in

accordance to law within 6 weeks from the date of receipt

of the same.