Abid Muhammed vs The Village Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 18331 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 18180 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          ABID MUHAMMED
          AGED 48 YEARS
          S/O. MUHAMMED NACHIKADAN, KALKAND POST, KARUVARAKUND,
          MALAPPURAM-676 523.

          BY ADVS.
          K.R.VINOD
          M.S.LETHA
          V.SRI NATH
          K.S.SREEREKHA
          JACQUELINE JACKSON



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          KERALA ESTATE VILLAGE, KERALA ESTATE P.O, PIN-676 525.

    2     THE TAHSILDAR
          NILAMBUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, NILAMBUR, PIN-679 329.

          BY ADV.ASWIN SETHUMADAHAVAN, SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18180 OF 2021
                                     2



                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to be the owner of a property covered

by Ext.P1 Release Deed and alleges that even though he

presented the said document for Transfer of Registry in his name

- before the 1st respondent - Village Officer, said Authority has

refused to do so or to even accept the land tax from him. The

petitioner, therefore, prays that 1st respondent be directed to issue

appropriate orders on his application for Transfer of Registry and

payment of tax, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Sri.K.R.Vinod - learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, submitted that the tax with respect to the property had

been accepted from the predecessor-in-interest of his client in the

past; and added that his client understands that the 1 st respondent

has refused to take action on his application only because the

property in question comes within the confines of the Kerala

Estate Village, Nilambur Taluk. He submitted that the objections

raised by the 1st respondent is not tenable, since several judgments WP(C) NO. 18180 OF 2021

have been issued by this Court in favour of the persons like his

client and pointed out in substantiation to Ext.P2. He, therefore,

reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be allowed.

3. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader -

Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan, conceded that Ext.P1 is a Release

Deed and, therefore, that the application of the petitioner is

competent to be considered by the 1st respondent. He, however,

submitted that he does not have instructions as to why the 1 st

respondent has not acted on the petitioner's application; but

admitted, to a pointed question from this Court, that it has already

concluded in Ext.P2 judgment that persons like the petitioner are

entitled to seek Transfer of Registry and payment of tax with

respect to the properties, which are included in the Kerala Estate

Village, Nilambur Taluk. He submitted that, therefore, he leaves

it to this Court to issue appropriate orders.

4. When I consider the afore submissions, there can be no

doubt that petitioner's request for Transfer of Registry and

payment of tax has not yet been rejected by the 1 st respondent. WP(C) NO. 18180 OF 2021

The petitioner has approached this Court with an apprehension

that it will be so.

5. However, going by Ext.P2 judgment, I cannot find the

apprehension to be tenable, because this Court has already

considered the issue as regards the properties relating to the

Kerala Estate Village, Nilambur Taluk and answered it in favour

of the petitioner therein. I am, therefore, of the firm view that 1 st

respondent must be directed to consider the petitioner's

application, both for Transfer of Registry and acceptance of tax,

adverting to the declarations in Ext.P2 judgment.

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and the 1st

respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner,

for Transfer of Registry and acceptance of tax, adverting to

Exts.P2 judgment, 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, the afore directions have been issued

without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to proceed WP(C) NO. 18180 OF 2021

against the property in question as per law, after following due

procedure, if it becomes so warranted in future.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/07/09/2021 WP(C) NO. 18180 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18180/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF THE JOINT RELEASE DEED NO.1064/2016 DATED 12.5.2016 OF SRO KARUVARAKUNDU.

Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.15935/2020, WPC NO.7262/2021, WPC NO.20043/2020 AND WPC NO.25422/2020 DATED 28.6.2021.