Kerala High Court
Shivadas V vs State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 24200 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
SHIVADAS V.
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, ARIKKATHIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR,
ERNAKULAM-682307
BY ADV B.RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682 024
3 THE TAHSILDAR
KANAYANUR THALUK, KOCHI-682011
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, UDAYAMPEROOR-682 307
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. RESMI THOMAS - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 24200 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that even though he had
applied for Transfer of Registry of the property
covered by Schedule A of Ext.P1 as early as on
25.03.2013, along with all relevant documents and
after remitting the requisite fees, no action has
been taken thereon by the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar
until now. He, therefore, prays that said
respondent be directed to effect the Transfer of
Registry in his favour within a time frame to be
fixed by this Court.
2. The learned Government Pleader, Smt.Reshmi
Thomas appearing for the official respondents,
submitted that 3rd respondent has been incapacitated
from considering the petitioner's request, because,
going by Ext.P6 - which is a partition deed
executed by the petitioner's father and his
siblings, the Survey Numbers of the properties
involved are completely different. She submitted
that it is, therefore, that petitioner was
requested to make necessary corrections in Ext.P6,
but that no action has been taken by him until now.
She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be
dismissed.
3. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with
the above submissions of the learned Government
Pleader, because the petitioner seeks Transfer of
Registry of the property covered by Schedule A of
ExtP1; while Ext.P6 relates to Schedule B thereof.
It is also on record that the Transfer of Registry
with respect to the properties in Ext.P6 has
already been completed in favour of the persons
obtaining rights thereunder; and I thus fail to
understand how the 3rd respondent can now say that
since the Survey Numbers of the said properties are
at variance with the ones covered by Schedule A to
Ext.P1, the request of the petitioner cannot be
acceded to.
4. I am resultantly of the certain view that
the afore stand of the 3rd respondent is untenable,
especially, as I have said above, because the
petitioner is seeking Transfer of Registry of the
property covered only by Schedule A to Ext.P1.
In such perspective, I order this writ petition
and direct the 3rd respondent to immediately hear
the petitioner and take a final decision on his
request for Transfer of Registry of the property
covered by Schedule A to Ext.P1, as expeditiously
as is possible, but not later than one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, if the petitioner is able to
obtain favourable orders through the afore
exercise, he will be at liberty to approach the 4th
respondent - Village Officer for payment of land
tax on the property in question, which shall be
acceded to without any avoidable delay.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/30.10
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24200/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE OF WILL DEED DATED 19/6/1995
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED
24.4.2005
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LEGAL HEIRS HIP CERTIFICATE
DATED 5/7/2012
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT FOR RS.100/- DATED
25.3.2013
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 15/4/2013
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED
NO.1676/01/2016 DATED 15/7/2016
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 5/2/2018
