Davood @ David vs The District Collector, Palakkad
2022 Latest Caselaw 721 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 23789 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

              DAVOOD @ DAVID, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O LATE AROGYA SWAMI,
              PAPAM PALLIYAR HOUSE, PAMBUPARA, CHANDRAPURAM P.O,
              WALAYAR, PALAKKAD.

              BY ADVS.
              K.MOHANAKANNAN
              H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD
              CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678013.

     2        ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE / SUB COLLECTOR
              CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001.

     3        THE TAHSILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678013.

     4        THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUDUSSERI EAST,
              PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678623.


              SMT.M.ANIMA. - G.P.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 23789/21
                                        2



                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that the property involved in this case

was owned by his father and that he died on 17.12.2016; prior to

which, he had left Ext.P2 Will bequeathing the same in his favour.

He says that there was a Civil Suit with respect to 56 cents of land

out of the total extent, but that the remaining extents are in his

exclusive ownership and possession, which is evident from Exts.P3

and P4 Possession Certificate and Tax Receipt respectively; and

resultantly that, on the death of his father, he applied through

Ext.P5 before the 2nd respondent - Sub Collector seeking transfer

of its Registry to be effected in his favour, but that since no action

was taken thereon, he had approached this Court through

WP(C)No.16155/2019, which was disposed of by the judgment

dated 13.06.2019.

2. The petitioner says that even though a notice of hearing

was issued to him thereafter - as is evident from Ext.P7, WPC 23789/21

consequent to which he approached the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar

with all documents, no further action was taken because the said

Authority informed him that his request can be considered only

after the survey of the property is completed and a proceedings in

Form 10 issued.

3. Sri.K.Mohanakannan - learned counsel for the

petitioner, argued that since his client has only requested for

transfer of Registry of the property in his favour, insistence on

survey of the same or issuance of Form 10 is absolutely

unnecessary and illegal; and thus reiteratingly prayed that the

reliefs sought for be granted.

4. In response, Smt.M.Anima - learned Government

Pleader, submitted that the 3rd respondent has been incapacitated

from considering the request of the petitioner because the

boundaries of the property in question are inconclusive and has not

been properly demarcated. She submitted that, therefore, unless a

proper enquiry is conducted - for which purpose, the petitioner has WPC 23789/21

already signed Form 10 - it would not be possible for the 3rd

respondent to concede to his request. She, therefore, prayed that

this Writ Petition be dismissed and the petitioner be directed to

wait for the survey, pursuant to Form 10 which he has signed.

5. Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader as

afore, the fact remains that Exts.P3 and P4 would clearly show

that even during the life time of the petitioner's father, he was

allowed to remit Land Tax on the property in question and a

Possession Certificate was also issued to him. Obviously therefore,

when he died, the petitioner - on the strength of Ext.P2 Will - is

entitled to obtain the transfer of Registry of the property in his

favour and I fail to understand why there should be a survey at all

for this purpose. Of course, since the learned Government Pleader

says that the boundaries of the property have not been properly

determined, a survey consequent to Form 10 signed by the

petitioner certainly is permissible, but this Court is of the firm

view that it would not be necessary for the Authorities to wait for WPC 23789/21

its outcome before the transfer of Registry of the property is

effected in favour of the petitioner.

6. I say as afore because, after the survey if the

boundaries are found to be altered or modified, then certainly, it

will be binding on the petitioner, subject to his legal remedies; but

one cannot fathom the reason for the 3rd respondent to say that

until such time, transfer of Registry of the property based on the

available documents cannot be made available to the petitioner.

Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition and quash Ext.P8

directing the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar, to take up Ext.P5

representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same, if there

are no other legal impediments; thus leading to an appropriate

order/proceedings thereon as expeditiously as is possible but not

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

judgment.

I make it clear that the afore shall be done without waiting

for the final result of the survey, which certainly can be pursued WPC 23789/21

and completed by the competent Authority in terms of law and

after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, based

on Form 10 proceedings signed by him; and if the boundaries or

extents of the property involved are modified or altered in any

manner whatsoever, it shall be binding on the petitioner, subject to

his available remedies.

Sd/-

RR                                    DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                               JUDGE
 WPC 23789/21


                APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23789/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED
                    BY THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY DATED
                    6.01.2017.
Exhibit P2          TRUE COPY OF THE WILL EXECUTED BY THE
                    FATHER OF THE PETITIONER DATED
                    14.12.2016.
Exhibit P3          TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE

ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S FATHER DATED 20.10.2016.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S FATHER DATED 14.10.2016.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.04.2019 WITH RECEIPT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.16155/2019 DATED 13.06.2019.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE NO.F5/2019/36122/9/500 DATED 29/09/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO.F6.27738/2019-9/15 DATED 21.10.2020.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.01.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.01.2021.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.02.2021.

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18/08/2021.