Kunju Muhammed P.A vs The Thahsildar, (Land Records), ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 21677 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. 21726 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          KUNJU MUHAMMED P.A., AGED 45 YEARS,
          S/O.LATE K.M.ABDUL AZEEZ, PUTHUVEETTIL,
          IRUMBOOZHIKKARA, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKOM,
          KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

          BY ADVS.
          V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL
          C.S.RAJANI



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE THAHSILDAR, (LAND RECORDS), VAIKOM TALUK,
          VAIKOM-686 141.

    2     THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UDAYANAPURAM VILLAGE,
          VALLAKOM, VAIKOM-686 146.

          BY ADV.SMT.SURYA BINOY, SR.GP


     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. 21726 OF 2021
                                    -2-

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

impugning Ext.P4 order of the 1st respondent -

Tahsildar, cancelling Exts.P1 to P3 documents. The

petitioner has made and urged various allegations,

averments and assertions in this writ petition;

but the primary of them, as argued by his learned

Counsel - Sri.V.R.K.Kaimal, is that it has been

issued without hearing him.

2. The petitioner says that, as is

indubitable from Ext.P4, the Tahsildar appears to

have acted on the basis of certain objections

raised by a certain Sri.N.M.Haidarali, who is also

a party to the afore documents; but that he had

chosen not even to notify him or to hear his

version before issuing the said order. He,

therefore, prays that Ext.P4 be set aside.

3. In response, the learned Senior Government WP(C) NO. 21726 OF 2021

Pleader - Smt.Surya Binoy, submitted that the

afore assertions of the petitioner are not

accurate, because Ext.P4 has been issued based on

a Compromise Decree produced before the Tahsildar

by Sri.N.M.Haidarali, with respect to Exts.P1 to

P3 documents and bearing certain concessions made

by the petitioner. She thus prayed that this writ

petition be dismissed.

4. Even when I hear the learned Senior

Government Pleader as afore and even if I am to

find favour with her, the fact remains that Ext.P4

could not have been issued without hearing the

petitioner since, admittedly, he is a party to

Exts.P1 to P3 documents.

5. For the afore reason alone, Ext.P4 has to

fail and I am certain that the petitioner is

entitled to relief.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and WP(C) NO. 21726 OF 2021

set aside Ext.P4; leaving liberty to the 1st

respondent - Tahsildar to reconsider the matter,

adverting to any objections that may have been

raised before him, after affording an opportunity

of being heard to the petitioner, as also to the

objector/s; thus culminating in an apposite order

and necessary action, as expeditiously as is

possible.

Needless to say, I have not considered any of

the rival contentions of the parties, including

that of the petitioner that Exts.P1 to P3 can be

set aside only through the process of law before a

competent Civil Court, and they are all left open

to be decided appropriately by the Tahsildar, as

and when action is taken forward by him in terms

of the afore reserved liberty.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 21726 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21726/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2046/1981 DATED 20.10.1981 OF SRO, THALAYOLAPARAMBU.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.21/2005 DATED 03.01.2005 SRO, THALAYOLAPARAMBU.

EXHIBIT P3 ORIGINAL COPY OF THE CORRECTION DEED NO.669/2012 DATED 12.03.2012 OF SRO, THALAYOLAPARAMBU.

EXHIBIT P4 ORIGINAL COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2017 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 ORIGINAL COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 29.04.2021 FILED BEFORE THE DEPUTY TAHSIDLAR (LAND RECORDS), VAIKOM.

EXHIBIT P6 ORIGINAL COPY OF THE FINAL DECREE DATED 27.03.2015 IN OS NO.263/1981 ALONG WITH THE COMPROMISE PETITION (OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT).

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE