Kerala High Court
Maruthi Apartment Owners' Association vs The Tahsildar on 8 December, 2023
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 12375 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
MARUTHI APARTMENT OWNERS' ASSOCIATION,
ADIYAT LANE, POOTHOLE THRISSUR 680 004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT GEORGE D,
CHEVOOKARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. DEVASSY OUSEPH.
BY ADVS.
VINOD RAVINDRANATH
MEENA.A.
K.C.KIRAN
M.R.MINI
M.DEVESH
ASHWIN SATHYANATH
ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
THAREEQ ANVER K.
T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
1* THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, TOWN HALL ROAD, THRISSUR 680 001.
DESCRIPTION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU
CORRECTED AS -
*THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
TALUK OFFICE, TOWN HALL ROAD, THRISSUR 680 001.
2 ARUMUGHAN @ DHARMARAJAN,
AGED 78 YEARS
S/O. PONNU SWAMY CHETTIYAR, FLAT NO. 47, MARUTHI
APARTMENTS, ADIYAT LANE, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR
DISTRICT 680 004.
3 ADDL.R3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEAR CITY
POST OFFICE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 020. [ADDL.R3 IS
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.09.2022 IN I.A
NO:1/22 IN WP(C) 12375/2022]
W.P.(c) No. 12375 of 2022
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP. SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(c) No. 12375 of 2022
3
JUDGMENT
The description of the 1st respondent in the cause
title is suo motu corrected as 'Tahsildar (Land
Records)'.
2. The petitioner is a Society formed by the
allottees of certain apartments. It is stated that
altogether, there are 47 apartments in the complex.
The petitioner has approached the 1st respondent
with Ext. P3 representation for mutation of 28 cents of
land kept as common area in the name of the
petitioner. The limited prayer of the petitioner in this
writ petition is for consideration of Ext. P3
representation.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. Though notice has been served to the 2nd
respondent, there is no appearance.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and
having regard to the submissions made across the
Bar, there will be a direction to the 1 st respondent to
consider Ext. P3 representation, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment, after hearing the petitioner and the 2 nd
respondent. It is made clear that, this Court has not
expressed any opinion as to the merits of Ext. P3
application.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
bnu JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMBINED AGREEMENT DATED
25.07.2001 FOR SALE OF 1/47 UNDIVIDED AND
INSEPARABLE SHARE OF LAND AND
CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENT WITH ONE OF THE
ALLOTTEE.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT DATED 05.10.2002
EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR
OF MR. GEORGE D. CHEVOOKKARAN AND HIS
WIFE NIMMY GEORGE.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE
IST RESPONDENT FOR MUTATION DATED
30.03.2022 BY THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION.
