K.S.George vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 5321 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 10527 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

    1       K.S.GEORGE, AGED 67 YEARS
            S/O.DEVASIA, KALAYATHINAL HOUSE, THEKKUMBAGHAM KARA,
            THEKKUMBAGHAM P.O, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
            IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 585.

    2       JESSY, AGED 59 YEARS W/O.K.S.GEORGE, KALAYATHINAL
            HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGHAM KARA, THEKKUMBAGHAM P.O, KARIKODE
            VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 585.

    3       ARUN BABU,AGED 36 YEARS
            S/O K.S.GEORGE, KALAYATHINAL HOUSE, THEKKUMBAGHAM KARA
            THEKKUMBAGHAM P.O, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
            IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 585.

            BY ADVS.
            GEORGE MATHEW
            M.D.SASIKUMARAN
            PRAVEEN S.
            SUNIL KUMAR A.G
            DIPU JAMES
            MATHEW K.T.
            GEORGE K.V.
            STEPHY K REGI



RESPONDENTS:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
            GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    2       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
            CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU.P.O, IDUKKI-685 603

    3       THE TAHASILDAR (LR)
            TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION , THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI
            DISTRICT-685 584.

    4       THE TALUK SURVEYOR,
            THODUPUZHA TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION , THODUPUZHA,
 WP(C) NO. 10527 OF 2022
                                 2

          IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 585.

    5     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          VILLAGE OFFICE, KARIKODE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI
          DISTRICT-685 584



          SR GP   SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 10527 OF 2022
                                       3



                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioners seek that the competent

respondent be directed to effect transfer of

Registry of the property covered by Exts.P1,P3

and P5 in their favour, within a time frame to

be fixed by this Court. The petitioners say

that the findings in Ext.P7 proceedings of the

Tahsildar - Land Records is in error and

therefore, that the transfer of Registry, as

requested by them, ought to be effected without

adverting to the same.

2. The afore submissions of the

petitioners were controverted by the learned

Senior Government Pleader - Smt.K.Amminikutty,

saying that there is difference between the

extent of the property claimed by the

petitioners and what is reflected in the

records. She added that, therefore, the

competent respondent has now sought a survey of WP(C) NO. 10527 OF 2022

the properties, for which purpose, the

petitioners have been issued notice and that

their request can be finalised only after the

said proceedings are completed.

3. In reply, Sri.A.G.Sunilkumar - learned

counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, in

Ext.P7, there is an apparent discord with

respect to the extent of the properties

involved because, it has not taken into account

Ext.P5 Sale Deed. He submitted that if all the

three Sale Deeds are accounted for, there will

be no difference in the extent.

4. When I evaluate the afore submissions,

it is clear that what is projected before this

Court is disputation of facts, which cannot be

resolved affirmatively while I act under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. However, since the learned Senior

Government Pleader says that the extent claimed

by the petitioners is not reflected in the WP(C) NO. 10527 OF 2022

records, which is controverted by the learned

counsel for the petitioners, relying on Ext.P6

report of the Taluk Surveyor, to assert that

Ext.P7 does not take into account all the three

documents, I am of the view that this matter

requires to be reconsidered by the Tahsildar

(Land Records) appropriately, after hearing the

petitioners and after assessing their

documents.

6. That said, normally, when a citizen

approaches the Tahsildar for the purpose of

effecting transfer of Registry, survey may not

be necessary, though it is within his

jurisdiction to conduct necessary inspection

and verify the physical attributes of the

properties concerned.

In the afore perspective, I order this writ

petition and set aside Ext.P7; with a

consequential direction to the 3rd respondent -

Tahsildar to reconsider the matter, after WP(C) NO. 10527 OF 2022

hearing the petitioners and after examining

Exts.P1, P3 and P5 - on the touchstone of

Ext.P7 report of the Taluk Surveyor - and to

complete proceedings, 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 if, during the afore

exercise, the 3rd respondent is desirous of

conducting measurement of properties and

assessing its attributes, he will be at liberty

to do so, for which purpose, a survey will not

be insisted, though other applicable methods

can be followed.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS WP(C) NO. 10527 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10527/2022

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DOC. NO. 4043 OF 1993 DTD.

30.12.1993 OF KARIKODE SRO.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.2890877 DTD. 08.06.2011 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF DOC. NO.1242 OF 1994 DTD.

30.03.1994 OF KARIKODE SRO.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO. 2890878 DTD. 08.06.2011 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF DOC.NO. 1601 OF 2003 DTD.19.05.2003 OF KARIKODE SRO.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO. K4-1152-B/13 DTD.12.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY NO. H1-19278/2017 DTD.20.11.2019 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. H1-19278/17 DTD 15.02.2022 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 3RD RESPONDENT.