Manoharan M.C vs District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 18750 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

         THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943

                             WP(C) NO. 13670 OF 2021

PETITIONERS:

     1         MANOHARAN M.C.
               AGED 49 YEARS
               S/O. CHANDRAN, PARASEERIL (H), IRUMPANAM P. O., TRIPUNITHURA.

     2         SATHYABALA
               AGED 81 YEARS
               KUNNATH HOUSE, VAVAKKAD, MOOTHAKUNNAM P. O., ALUVA.

               BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN



RESPONDENTS:

     1         DISTRICT COLLECTOR
               COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682030.

     2         TAHSILDAR
               TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA - 683101.

     3         VILLAGE OFFICER
               PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE, PARAKKADAVU, ERNAKULAM - 683572.

     4         GIRIJA
               W/O. SUKUMARA PANICKER, NEAR ADVAITHASRAMAM, KURUMASSERY,
               ALUVA - 683579.

               BY SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN-SR.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2021,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 13670 OF 2021

                                   2




                             JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court asserting that they

are the owners of certain extents of property, comprised of in

Sy.Nos.460/11, 459/14 of Parakkadavu Village in Aluva Taluk.

According to them, even though they are fully entitled to the full

ownership and possession of the property concerned, as is evident

from Exts.P1 to P3, when they made an application for Transfer of

Registry of the same in their names, consequent to the death of

their predecessors-in interest, it has been refused to be acted upon

by the 3rd respondent - Village Officer, but without assigning any

reason. The petitioners, therefore, pray that the 3 rd respondent be

directed to consider their applications, namely Exts.P4 and P5,

appropriately within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. In response to the afore submissions made on behalf of

the petitioners by their learned counsel - Sri.Rajesh Narayan Iyer,

the learned Senior Government Pleader - Sri.Ashwin

Sethumadhavan, submitted that, the 3 rd respondent - Village

Officer is incapacitated from acting in this case because, he has

now received a competing claim from another person, who asserts

that he is in possession and ownership of the property in question. WP(C) NO. 13670 OF 2021

He submitted that, therefore, unless the parties are able to obtain

necessary orders from a competent Civil Court, the said Authority

cannot take any final decision on Exts.P4 and P5.

3. In reply, Sri.Rajesh Narayan Iyer, submitted that the

afore submissions of the learned Government Pleader are not fully

accurate because the person who is now making a competing claim,

was allowed by his clients' predecessors-in-interest to set up a

small homestead in a corner of the said property. He submitted that

therefore, even if the said person is to make any claim, he cannot

impel anything more than what he is in possession of; and

therefore, that the 3rd respondent - Village Officer is obligated to

consider Exts.P4 and P5, atleast with respect to the balance of the

property, which is admittedly in his client's possession. He thus

reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be ordered as prayed for.

4. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is clear that

Exts.P4 and P5 have not been disposed of by the 3 rd respondent -

Village Officer. Whatever be the reason, said Authority has a duty

to issue final orders thereon, since otherwise, the petitioners will

not obtain any further recourse in law, if they are so advised.

5. That said, if there is a competing claim on the property in

question, certainly, the 3rd respondent must hear the said person WP(C) NO. 13670 OF 2021

also based on the documents and materials to be produced by him,

but Exts.P4 and P5 will require to be disposed of without any

further avoidable delay.

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, directing the 3 rd

respondent to take up Exts.P4 and P5 applications of the petitioners

and to dispose of the same, after affording them an opportunity of

being heard, as also any other person who impels a competing

claim over the property in question; thus culminating in an

appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible but not

later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Needless to say, in case, after the afore enquiry, the 3 rd

respondent finds that the person claiming a competing interest is in

possession of only a certain extent of property and that his title will

require to be investigated through a competent Forum, then the

petitioners' request through Exts.P4 and P5, with respect to the

balance properties, shall be acceded to, with liberty being left open

to them also to approach the competent Forums.

SD/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp WP(C) NO. 13670 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13670/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.3649 OF 1980 DATED 16.08.1980 OF SRO, ANKAMALI.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.07.15.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE NO.K.DIS-

14158/2019/H.3 DATED 16.03.2021.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 24.03.2021.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09.04.2021.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 17.04.2021.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERRED UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED 09.04.2021.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 09.04.2021.