Kerala High Court
Thomas Jacob vs The Tahsildar (Lr) on 24 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 3249 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
THOMAS JACOB, AGED 53, S/O JACOB, KALAPPURAYIL HOUSE,
POOPARA P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685619.
BY ADVS.SANTHOSH MATHEW
ARUN THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TAHSILDAR (LR), UDUMBANCHOL TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,
UDUMBANCHOLA P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685554.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, POOPARA VILLAGE, POOPARA P.O,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685619.
3 SMT.RADHAMANI HARINARAYANAN, AGED 50,
W/O HARINARAYANAN, MALIKAYIL HOUSE, MULAVOOR P.O,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686673.
4 SMT.SHAILAJA BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 52, KAKKANATTU HOUSE,
UDUMBANCHOLA P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685554.
BY ADVS.K.S.BHARATHAN
GEORGE MATHEW
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
PRAVEEN S.
MATHEW K.T.
GEORGE K.V.
STEPHY K REGI
ALPHIN ANTONY
AADITHYAN S.MANNALI
VISAKH ANTONY
ABEL ANTONY
CHRISTINE MATHEW
RANCE R.
SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3249 OF 2022
-2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner singularly pleads that Ext.P7
application submitted by him before the 2nd
respondent - Village Officer, for transfer of
Registry of the property involved in this case in
his favour, be directed to be considered and
allowed, within a time frame to be fixed by this
Court.
2. Sri.Arun Thomas - learned counsel for the
petitioner, pointed out to Ext.P8 to assert that
Village Officer is refusing to consider Ext.P7
application merely because a complaint is stated
to have been preferred by the 4 th respondent before
the Legal Services Authority. He argued that
merely because such a complaint is pending before
another Authority, neither the 1st respondent nor
the 2nd respondent can abdicate their statutory
obligations to consider Ext.P7 and take necessary
WP(C) NO. 3249 OF 2022
action thereon. He, therefore, reiteratingly
prayed that the competent among respondents 1 and
2 be directed to take up and dispose of Ext.P7
application without any further delay.
3. Sri.George Mathew - learned counsel
appearing for the 4th respondent, initially sought
time to file counter pleadings, but submitted that
his client has valid claims over the property in
question and therefore, that unless her objections
are also taken into account, the competent among
respondents 1 and 2 may not be allowed to dispose
of Ext.P7. He added that if she is given an
opportunity of being heard by the said
Authorities, she will be able to convince them of
her bona fides.
4. In response, the learned Senior Government
Pleader - Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that since
the 4th respondent appears to have made a rival
claim over the property in question, it is only
WP(C) NO. 3249 OF 2022
prudent and justified that the competent among
respondents 1 and 2 hear her also, while
considering Ext.P7. She submitted that this can be
done without any avoidable delay.
5. When I evaluate the afore submissions and
assess them, it is indubitable that if a valid
claim has been made by respondent No.4, either
before respondents 1 or 2, then same will also
have to be adverted to. However, as rightly stated
by Sri.Arun Thomas, in Ext.P8, the Village Officer
only says that the 4th respondent has raised a
complaint before the Legal Services Authority.
Obviously, therefore, if she has any bonafide
claim, she will have to impel it before the
competent among respondents 1 and 2; for which
purpose, I am certain that she must be given
sufficient liberty.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition and
direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P7
WP(C) NO. 3249 OF 2022
application of the petitioner, after affording
him, as also respondents 3 and 4, an opportunity
of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate
order and necessary action 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, the 4th respondent will be at
full liberty to make her objections against Ext.P7
before respondents 1 and 2 and this shall be done,
if she is so interested, within a period of one
week from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment; in which event, same shall be considered
in terms of the afore directions.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
akv
WP(C) NO. 3249 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3249/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.441/1/2021 OF
SRO, RAJAKUMARI DATED 1.3.2021.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PATTA NO.L.A.516/1967 OF
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR DATED 10.06.1971.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED
NO.1175/2003 DATED 9.5.2003.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED
NO.1662/2013 DATED 31.05.2013 OF
RAJAKUMARI SRO.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 25.02.2021 OF THE SRO RAJAKUMARI.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
24.01.2022 PAID BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED
01.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
