Mary Rani @ Rani Joseph vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18093 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 17888 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

              MARY RANI @ RANI JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS
              W/O.LATE O.P.JOSEPH, OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, BOAT JETTY ROAD,
              VADUTHALA, CHERANALLOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
              ERNAKULAM - 683 544.

              BY ADVS.
              SUSANTH SHAJI
              ALBIN A. JOSEPH


RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
              REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

     2        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL
              STATION, KAKKANADU, KOCHI - 682 030.

     3        THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,
              ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

     4        THE TAHSILDAR (LR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,
              ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

     5        THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM
              DISTRICT - 683 544.

     6        THE SUB-REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE,
              ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

              SRI ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 17888/21
                                       2



                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

seeking that Ext.P9 application preferred by her

be directed to be disposed of by the 3rd

respondent - Tahsildar within a time frame to be

fixed by this Court.

2. According to the petitioner, she has been

constrained to approach the Tahsildar through the

afore application because, even though Ext.P1

document had been earlier settled between her and

her daughter and grandson, it was cancelled

through the proceedings of the Lok Adalath, which

is evident from Ext.P4. She, therefore, seeks the

Transfer of Registry of the property in question

be directed to be made in her favour by the 3rd

respondent, without insisting on a cancellation

deed with respect to Ext.P1. She alleges that in

spite of the fact that Ext.P9 had been preferred

as early as on 07.07.2021, no action has been WPC 17888/21

taken thereon by the 3rd respondent until now.

3. The petitioner asserts that, in fact, as

is luculent from Ext.P8 encumbrance certificate,

the Sub Registrar has already effaced Ext.P1 from

the books, on the strength of Ext.P4, but that 3rd

respondent is still insisting that it be cancelled

through a separate one. She asserts that this is

illegal and prays that he be directed to do so

within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

4. The afore submissions of Sri.Susanth

Shaji - learned counsel for the petitioner, were

met by the learned Senior Government Pleader -

Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan, submitting that until

Ext.P1 is properly cancelled through a document,

it may not be possible for the 3rd respondent to

accede to the request of the petitioner. He,

however, submitted that if this Court is so

inclined, the 3rd respondent is willing to

consider the petitioner's contentions based on

Ext.P4 and issue appropriate orders on Ext.P9; but WPC 17888/21

prayed that this Court may not make any

affirmative declarations on the entitlement of the

petitioner to any relief and allow the 3rd

respondent to take an appropriate decision thereon

as per law.

5. When I consider the afore submissions, it

is without doubt that, at this stage, it will not

be proper or prudent for this Court to speak on

the merits of the contentions of the petitioner;

but I must say, prima facie, that there is some

force in her submission that Ext.P4 would operate

so as to cancel Ext.P1, since it has been issued

by a competent Lok Adalath. However, I do not

propose to make any affirmative declarations at

this time, but am certain that 3rd respondent must

consider this from the ambit of the applicable

law, while disposing of Ext.P9.

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered,

directing the 3rd respondent to take up Ext.P9

application of the petitioner and dispose it of in WPC 17888/21

the manner afore, also adverting to Ext.P8

encumbrance certificate, and after affording her

and other interested parties, if any, an

opportunity of being heard - either physically or

through video-conferencing - thus culminating in

an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as

is possible, but not later than one month from the

date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

RR                                       DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                              JUDGE
 WPC 17888/21


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17888/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1        TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT

DEED NO.3018/016 OF SRO, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 07/07/2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.317/2019 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LOK ADALAT AWARD DATED 14/12/2019.

Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION FILED AS I.A.NO.1/2020 IN O.S.NO.317/2019 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/07/2020 IN I.A.NO.1/2020 IN O.S.NO.317/2019.

Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED AS I.A.NO.5/2020 IN O.S.NO.317/2019 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P8 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 29/06/2021 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07/07/2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD AND 5TH RESPONDENTS.

Exhibit P10 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23/07/2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH WPC 17888/21

RESPONDENT.