Paichudathil Seena vs Village Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 3799 Ker

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

          TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1944

                            WP(C) NO. 8575 OF 2022

PETITIONER:

              PAICHUDATHIL SEENA,
              AGED 37 YEARS
              D/O. LATE KUNCHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, VAYAKKARA AMSOM, PULINGOM DEOM,
              KOLWALLI P.O., CHUNDA 670 511.

              BY ADVS.
              E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI
              NARAYANAN P POTTY
              P.REJINARK
              M.K.SASEENDRAN (MELEL)
              P.SANKARAN NAMPOOTHIRI
              VINOD RAJKUMAR



RESPONDENT:

              VILLAGE OFFICER,
              KANOL P.O., VIA PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 307.


OTHER PRESENT:

              SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY.SR.G.P.




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2022,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 8575 OF 2022

                                       2




                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P8 order issued by the Village

Officer, Kankol, whereby, her request for transfer of Registry of the

property involved in this case and for permission to remit land tax

thereon, has been rejected saying that she has not been able to prove

her continued possession over it, as is required under Rule 28 of the

Kerala Transfer of Registry Rules.

2. The petitioner says that the holdings and findings in

Ext.P8 are totally in error because, she had produced all documents,

including Exts.P10 to P14, before the Village Officer, which would

establish indubitably that the possession over the property in

question was originally with her father several decades ago and that,

after his death, it devolved upon the mother, who thereafter, gifted

the same through Ext.P1. She submits that, therefore, when the

continuous possession over the property remains undisturbed and

without any contest from any other person, the Village Officer could

not have issued Ext.P8; thus praying that same be set aside.

3. I have heard Sri.E.N.Vishnu Namboodiri - learned counsel

for the petitioner and Smt.K.Amminikutty, learned Senior

Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. WP(C) NO. 8575 OF 2022

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader opposed the afore

request of the petitioner, saying that Ext.P8 has been issued in terms

of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.24107/2020, wherein, the

Village Officer was asked to make an enquiry regarding possession of

the property and then conclude upon the application of the petitioner

appropriately. She pointed out that, as is evident from Ext.P8, the

petitioner or her mother who attended the hearing, did not produce

any documents in substantiation of their plea that they were in

continuous possession over the property in question and therefore,

that said Authority could have done nothing more than to have

rejected their claim. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be

dismissed.

5. In reply, Sri.E.N.Vishnu Namboodiri - learned counsel for

the petitioner, submitted that since his client has been in continuous

possession of the property for the last several decades, she has

preferred an application before the Land Tribunal, Payyanur, for

obtaining 'Patta' over the same and that same is still pending. He

submitted that, therefore, the question of possession over the

property remains without doubt and thus reiteratingly prayed that

this writ petition be allowed.

6. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt

that the petitioner relies solely on Exts.P10 to P14 to establish that WP(C) NO. 8575 OF 2022

tax had been remitted on the property by her mother and father in

the past, to establish continuous possession over it. Since the

property is stated to be a 'garden land' without any construction

thereon, perhaps the petitioner would not be in a position to produce

any other document in support of her assertion of possession.

7. However, since she says that she has already moved the

Land Tribunal for obtaining 'Patta' over the property, it was

necessary for her to have produced such documents before the

Village Officer, who could have then verified the same, thus leading

to an appropriate decision thereon, as per the directions of this Court.

Therefore, in order to pave way for one more opportunity to the

petitioner to establish her plea over the property, I order this writ

petition and set aside Ext.P8, however, clarifying that this is not

because I have found against it affirmatively, but only as a latitude to

her; with a consequential direction to the Village Officer to reconsider

the claim of the petitioner, after examining Exts.P10 to P14 tax

receipts and also the papers to show that she has already moved the

Land Tribunal, Payyanur. If these documents are produced before

the said Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment, the afore exercise shall be

completed, after affording her an opportunity of being heard; thus

culminating in a fresh order, as expeditiously as is possible but not WP(C) NO. 8575 OF 2022

later than three months thereafter.

Needless to say, the factum of the Land Tribunal not having

issued an order on the application of the petitioner cannot be used by

the Village Officer to deny permission to effect transfer of Registry or

remittance of land tax on the property, and it can be permitted

provided other evidence in substantiation of her plea of continuous

possession is established.

I, however, make it further clear that if the Land Tribunal is to

find against the petitioner, all such action will stand set aside and the

petitioner, subject to her available remedies, will abide by such

orders.

SD/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp WP(C) NO. 8575 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8575/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF GIFT DEED NO. 1257 /2018 OF PERINGOME SUB REGISTRY FROM PETITIONERS MOTHER PAICHUDATHIL THANKAMANI.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 2582/2017 OF PERINGOME SUB REGISTRY.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF WILL DATED 12.3.2008.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 6.5.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE MOTHER OF PETITIONER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, LAND RECORDS, PAYYANNUR TALUK.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 5.6.2020 SENT BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONERS MOTHER.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 27.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, LAND RECORDS, PAYYANNUR.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.9.2021 IN WPC NO.

24107/2020 OF THIS HONBLE COURT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.1.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KANKOL.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 28.1.2022 IN CON. CASE (C) NO. 2205/2021 OF THIS HONBLE COURT.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEARS 2013-

14 DATED 23.4.2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KANKOL REGARDING ITEM NO 2 OF EXHIBIT P1 PROPERTY.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEARS 2014-

2015 AND 2015-2016 DATED 5.5.2015 ISSUED BY KANKOL VILLAGE REGARDING ITEM NO. 2 OF EXHIBIT P1 PROPERTY.

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2016-

2017 DATED 25.5.2016 ISSUED BY KANKOL VILLAGE REGARDING ITEM NO. 2 OF EXHIBIT P1 PROPERTY.

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2017- WP(C) NO. 8575 OF 2022

2018 DATED 18.4.2017 ISSUED BY KANKOL VILLAGE REGARDING ITEM NO. 2 OF EXHIBIT P1 PROPERTY.

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2018-

2019 DATED 21.5.2018 ISSUED BY KANKOL VILLAGE REGARDING ITEM NO. 2 OF EXHIBIT P1 PROPERTY.