Kerala High Court
Martin Babu P.J vs The State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 23RD POUSHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 26407 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
MARTIN BABU P.J.
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, PANACHICKAL HOUSE, KANAYANNUR VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM, NOW RESIDING @ HOUSE NO. 15/279(1/326),
PUTHUVYPE, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
N.RATHEESH
SUMA RATHEESH
SHANKAR RETHEESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, 682011.
3 SECRETARY,
ELAMKUNNAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM - 682511.
BY ADV Benzir P. M.
SR GP K. AMMINIKUTTY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P.(C)No. 26407 of 2021
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2022.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a
direction to the third respondent to effect the change of
ownership in his favour, with regard to the building
bearing No.15/279 situated in his property in Sy.No.279/3
of Puthuvype Village, within a time frame to be fixed by
this Court.
2. Sri.Aravind Ajith - learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the only reason now stated by
the third respondent in refusing to consider Ext.P4 and
grant his client relief as sought for, is that he must
produce affidavits from all the prior owners to the effect
W.P.(C)No. 26407 of 2021
that they have no objection in the transfer of the building
in his favour. The learned counsel argues that this is
absolutely improper and unnecessary, since his client's
title over the building is established by the documents in
his possession and therefore that affidavits of the prior
owners could not have been asked for.
3. In response, Sri.P.M.Benzir - learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the third respondent, submitted
that the petitioner was directed to produce the affidavits
of the previous owners only because of the applicable
Statute requires so. He, however, submitted that, if this
Court is inclined to grant relief to the petitioner, then the
third respondent may be allowed to consider Ext.P4 in
terms of law, after assessing his title documents, and
provided he is able to establish full ownership and title
over the building in question.
W.P.(C)No. 26407 of 2021
4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is
without doubt that, what is relevant for the third
respondent is to find out whether the petitioner has title
over the building in question, through valid documents. If
he is able to establish this, certainly, his request for
transfer of Registry of the same in his favour must be
acceded to, without insisting on him obtaining affidavits
from the previous owners.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition
and direct the third respondent to take up Ext.P4
application of the petitioner and dispose of the same,
after affording him an opportunity of being heard and of
producing all necessary documents to establish his title
over the building in question; thus culminating in an
appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as
expeditiously as is possible; within a period of one month
W.P.(C)No. 26407 of 2021
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Raj/13.01.2022.
W.P.(C)No. 26407 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26407/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID SALE DEED NO.
86/2018 DATED 09.05.2018.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
02.09.2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
RECEIPT NO. 4406 DATED 21.05.2020
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
22.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR CHANGE
OF OWNERSHIP OF THE BUILDING.
