Kerala High Court
P.P.Sreedharan vs The Village Officer on 14 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA,
1943
WP(C) NO. 9094 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 P.P.SREEDHARAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN NAIR,
SUDHARMA HOUSE, KUTTOTH, MEMUNDA AMSOM, KUTTOTH
DESOM, KEEZHAL POST, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 104.
2 P.P. DEVAKI AMMA, AGED 72 YEARS,
D/O. RAMAN NAIR, PUTHIYAPARAMBATH POYILIL
VEEDU,NARAYANA NAGAR, VATAKARA P.O.,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 101.
BY ADVS.
SRI. K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
SMT. SATHYASHREE PRIYA EASWARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAYAD VILLAGE,
PALAYADNADA POST, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 521.
2 THE TAHSILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, VATAKARA P.O.
VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 101.
3 THE TALUK SURVEYOR, VILLAGE OFFICE,
PALAYAD VILLAGE, PALAYADNADA POST,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 521.
4 KAMALAKSHI AMMA, AGED 74 YEARS
W/O. SANKARNA NAIR, AYYAMKUZHIYL HOUSE
KARUVANCHERY AMSOM, CHELLATTUPOYIL DESOM,
PALAYADNADA, PALAYADNADA POST, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 521.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
SRI.HANIL KUMAR (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.9094 of 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners claim exclusive
ownership of certain properties in Re-
Sy.Nos.1.8/4 and 18.7/1 of Karuvanchery Amsom
Chellattupoyil Desom on the strength of Ext.P1
document.
2. According to the petitioners, since
Ext.P1 gives them full ownership rights over
the property in question, the 1st respondent
is obligated to accept the land tax and to
effect Transfer of Registry of the same in
their favour. They allege that, however, when
they approached the 1st respondent for such
purpose, he has refused action without
assigning any reason; and they consequently,
pray that said respondent be directed to
Transfer the Registry of the property in their
favour and accept the land tax within a time
frame to be fixed by this Court.
W.P.(C) No.9094 of 2021
3. The afore submissions of Sri.K.Lakshmi
Narayanan, learned counsel for the
petitioners, were opposed by the learned
counsel appearing for the 4th respondent,
Sri.Parthasarathy, saying that his client is a
neighbour of the property now claimed by the
petitioner and she has reasonable suspicion
that the boundaries of their properties are
either overlapping, or that the petitioners
are claiming an extent owned by her.
4. Sri.Parthasarathy submitted that,
therefore, his client had earlier approached
this Court and obtained Ext.P3 judgment,
whereby, directions had been issued to the
Tahsildar (Land Revenue) to measure the
properties, after hearing both sides and to
complete the proceedings thereon within the
time frame fixed therein. He added that,
consequent thereto, Exts.P6 and P7 notices
have been issued to both sides and he prayed
W.P.(C) No.9094 of 2021
that the Tahsildar be directed to complete the
proceedings on it, so that petitioners' claims
can also be considered simultaneously by the
said Authority, based on their title
documents. He reiteratingly pleaded that this
alone be allowed to be done in this writ
petition because, otherwise, there would be
severe confusion as to the properties owned by
the parties, which would lead to further
litigation.
5. The learned Special Government
Pleader, Sri.Hanil Kumar, affirmed the afore
submissions of Sri.Parthasarathy saying that,
since proceedings have already been initiated
by the Tahsildar (LR), as is evident from
Exts.P6 and P7, no independent directions may
be issued in this writ petition and that the
petitioners be ordered to appear before the
said Authority, so that their claims can also
be considered while that of the 4th
W.P.(C) No.9094 of 2021
respondent is assessed.
6. I must say that I find great force in
the submissions of the learned Government
Pleader and Sri.Parthasarathy because, if
proceedings have already been initiated based
on Ext.P3 judgment by the Tahsildar - evident
from Exts.P6 and P7 notices issued to the
petitioners and the 4th respondent - I am of
the view that said Authority must be permitted
to complete such proceedings because,
otherwise, the petitioners' claim would have
the effect of creating further chaos.
7. Resultantly, I direct the petitioners
and the 4th respondent to mark appearance
before the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar at 11.00
a.m on 28/09/2021; on which day, said
Authority will either hear them or fix
another convenient date for such purpose and
thus conclude the proceedings based on
Exts.P6 and P7 notices, leading to
W.P.(C) No.9094 of 2021
appropriate orders thereon, as also on the
request of the petitioners for permission to
remit the tax on the property covered by
Ext.P1 and its Transfer of Registry in their
names.
8. The afore exercise shall be completed
by the 2nd respondent as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than two months from
28.09.2021.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
ww
W.P.(C) No.9094 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9094/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING
NO. 144/52 DATED 25.01.1952.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 35/17
ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT
PAYYOLI.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
8949/19 DATED 20.03.2019 ON THE FILE
OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF THE
PROPERTY HELD AND POSSESSED BY THE
PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF THE
PROPERTY ALLEGED TO BE IN POSSESSION
OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.
G2-3601/16 DATED 01.08.2019 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.
G2-3601/16 DATED 04.03.201 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF WRIT
PETITION W.P.(C) NO.8949/2016 ALONG
WITH EXHIBITS.
