Thazhe Veettil Rajan vs The Village Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 21580 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 20242 OF 2020
PETITIONER:

          THAZHE VEETTIL RAJAN, AGED 49 YEARS,
          S/O.PERINTHOTTATHIL AMBU (LATE), PERINGOME AMSOM,
          PERINTHATTA DESOM, MAPPADICHAL, PURAKKUNNU P.O.,
          PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

          BY ADV V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          ERAMAM VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 306.

    2     THA TAHSILDAR
          PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 307.

 ADDL.R3. PUTHIYAPURAYIL CHANDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS,
          S/O. KRISHNAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM, ERAMAM
          P.O., PURAKUNNU, PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN -
          670306.
          (IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.01.2021 IN IA
          1/2020)

          SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
          SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB
          SMT. SURYA BINOY- SR. G.P



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20242 OF 2020
                               2


                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims exclusive ownership over a

property which is covered by Ext.P1 Will, but alleges that

when he approached the Second respondent - Tahsildar and

the first respondent - Village Officer for transfer of Registry

in his name and for permission to remit land tax, the third

respondent and two others had objected to the grant of such

reliefs to the petitioner. The petitioner says that the refusal

of the official respondents to accede to his request is grossly

illegal and unlawful because the title over the property

remains uncontested and unimpeached until now; and

consequentially, that he is fully entitled to seek transfer of

Registry of the property covered by Ext.P1 in his favour and

to remit land tax thereon. The petitioner, therefore, prays

that this writ petition be allowed and the Authorities be

directed to accede to his afore request, without any further

delay.

2. Sri.Akshay R., learned counsel appearing for the third

respondent, submitted that his client is staking claim over the

property on the allegation that Ext.P1 is a bogus document.

He then added that his client has filed a suit with respect to WP(C) NO. 20242 OF 2020

the validity of Ext.P1 before a competent Civil Court and

thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.Surya

Binoy, submitted that no reliefs can be sought for by the

petitioner in this case without challenging or answering the

objections recorded in Ext.P10, which is a notice issued to

the petitioner by the Village Officer. She pointed out that the

petitioner has chosen not to assail Ext.P10 and therefore

prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader further

submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P10, certain objections

have been raised by the Village Officer, without any reference

to the claims of the third respondent and therefore, that

unless the petitioner satisfies the same, the reliefs sought for

by him in this writ petition cannot be granted in any manner.

5. In reply, Sri.Ramesan Nambisan submitted that the

third respondent has not filed any suit and that in any event,

his client has not received any summons or notice from any

competent Court until now. He then replied to the

submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader

saying that Ext.P10 is only a notice issued by the Village

Officer, which is incompetent in law; and therefore, that it is WP(C) NO. 20242 OF 2020

not necessary for his client to challenge it, especially because

he is claiming full title over the property based on Ext.P1.

6. Sri.Ramesan Nambisan, thereafter, showed me

Exts.P8 and P9(a) to assert that the competent Authorities

have enquired into the claim of the third respondent to find

that he has no right over the property at all and that he

cannot assert any rival right on it as has been attempted to

be done by him. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted

that the mere objections of the third respondent, particularly

in view of Exts.P8 and P9(a) cannot be a reason why the

official respondents can refuse the reliefs sought for by his

client.

7. I must say that I find substantial force in the

submissions of Sri.Ramesan Nambisan, learned counsel for

the petitioner because, unless the third respondent is able to

obtain valid orders from a competent Civil Court, I fail to

understand how respondents 1 and 2 are refusing to accept

the request of the petitioner.

8. As to the submissions of the learned Senior

Government Pleader with respect to Ext.P10 is concerned,

certainly the competent Authority can make necessary

enquiries and seek any clarification from the petitioner, but WP(C) NO. 20242 OF 2020

this shall be done without any reference to the claim made by

the third respondent over the property because Exts.P8 and

P9(a) would at least prima facie show that the same had not

been properly established in any manner by the said

respondent.

9. That apart, even if the transfer of Registry is effected

in favour of the petitioner based on Ext.P1 and he is allowed

to remit land tax, if the third respondent or any other person

is able to obtain judgments from a competent Civil Court

against his title, or should his title be declared to be not valid,

then necessary consequences as per law will certainly follow,

including the divesting of title of the petitioner, leading to the

cancellation of the transfer of Registry in his favour and

remittance of land tax.

10. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition

and direct respondents 1 and 2 to effect transfer of Registry

of the property covered by Ext.P1 in favour of the petitioner

and to allow him to remit land tax thereon, if there are no

legal impediments standing in its way - but de hors the

objections of the third respondent or such other, unless based

on valid Court orders - as expeditiously as is possible, but not

later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of WP(C) NO. 20242 OF 2020

this judgment.

To obtain an expeditious compliance of the directions

above, I direct the petitioner to approach the second

respondent - Tahsildar with an apposite application, along

with a certified copy of the judgment; and on receipt of the

same, the said Authority will notify the third respondent and

then hear both sides and complete the afore exercise within

the time frame afore fixed, which will begin from the date on

which the said application is made by the petitioner.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 20242 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20242/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DATED 19/01/1989 EXECUTED BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER LATE AMBU IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED 05/12/2019 FILED IN O.S.NO.171 OF 2019.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 20/12/2019 IN O.S.NO.171 OF 2019 OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PAYYANNUR.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/12/2019 IN O.S.NO.171 OF 2019 DATED 20/12/2019 OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PAYYANNUR.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT DATED 18/02/2020 EXECUTED BY THE MOTHER, BROTHER AND SISTERS OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/07/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.GEN/1/20 DATED 24/08/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO.2390 OF 2020 DATED 15/09/2020 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, MATHAMANGALAM.

EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE NO.I.D.P16848793 DATED 17/09/2020 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, MATHAMANGALAM.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT WP(C) NO. 20242 OF 2020

Exhibit P9A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO 6/2021 DATED 20.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P9B TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY IN RS NO 4/2 OF ERAMAM VILLAGE, MATHAMANGALAM AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO GEN/1/2020 DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT