Cissy James vs The District Collector
2023 Latest Caselaw 2444 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
    TUESDAY, THE 24th    DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 5th PHALGUNA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 4109 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:

           CISSY JAMES, AGED 46 YEARS
           KOOTTUMMEL HOUSE, SHANTI NAGAR, RAJAGIRI P.O,
           KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683104
           BY ADV ARJUN S.


RESPONDENT/S:

    1      THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
           COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-KUMILY ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
           686002
    2      THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
           MINI CIVIL STATION, UNION CLUB ROAD, PUTHENANGADY,
           KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
    3      THE TAHSILDAR
           TALUK OFFICE CHANGANASSERY, KACHERY ROAD,
           CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686101
    4      THE VILLAGE OFFICER
           VILLAGE OFFICE NEDUMKUNNAM, KARUKACHAL MANIMALA ROAD,
           NEDUMKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686542
    5      THE SUB REGISTRAR
           SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE CHANGANASSERY, KACHERY ROAD,
           CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686101
    6      THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE KARUKACHAL,
           KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686540
    7      LISAMMA JOSHI, AGED 53 YEARS
           PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE, KARUKACHAL
           P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686504



           SMT. C S SHEEJA (SR GP)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 4109 OF 2023                 2



                                JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by

Exts.P9 and P10 orders issued by the 2nd respondent and 1st

respondent respectively under the provisions of the Transfer of

Registry Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner's late

father (James Mathew) was in absolute ownership and possession

of about 92 cents of land by virtue of a settlement deed executed

in the year 1984. During Re.Survey proceedings, the petitioner's

late father was found to be in enjoyment and possession of a total

extent of 107 cents of land. Petitioner's late father executed a

settlement deed in the year 1999, settling an extent of 50 cents of

land in favour of the petitioner. On the death of petitioner's

father, by virtue of the stipulations contained in the Will executed

by him, the remaining 57 Cents of land also bequeathed to the

petitioner with a life interest reserved in favour of petitioner's

mother. Petitioner's mother executed a relinquishment deed,

relinquishing her life interest, in the year 2018. Thereafter, the

entire property, including the excess land [found to be in the

possession and enjoyment of petitioner's late father during

Re.Survey] was mutated in favour of the petitioner and the

petitioner was also paying basic land tax for the entire extent of

property. The mutation effected in favour of the petitioner has

now been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner is in

possession of excess land .

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that since the petitioner's late father had been in

enjoyment and possession of a larger extent of property which

was identified during Re.Survey proceedings, merely because the

settlement deed of 1984 described the extent of land to be only

92 Cents, the respondents could not have found in any manner

that the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner for a total

extent of 107 Cents is bad in any manner. It submitted that even

in respect of the land over which the petitioner has no document

of title, the petitioner is entitled to mutation . Reference is made

in this regard to Rule 10 of the Rules and in particular to 'Note-

(ii)' below that Rule. It is also submitted that, following

cancellation of mutation effected in favour of the petitioner, the

mutation in respect of the property is reverted in the name of

late father of the petitioner and that, at any rate, cannot be done.

4. Learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions,

would submit that that it was necessary to cancel the mutation

effected in favour of the petitioner for the entire extent of 107

Cents as the documents of title (through which the petitioner

claims) indicate that the petitioner is entitled to ownership and

possession of only 92 Cents, which is the extent described in the

settlement deed of 1984 through which the late father of the

petitioner obtained the property. It is submitted that if the

petitioner has any claim over any further extent, obtained by way

of any adverse possession etc., petitioner has to make an

application as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 10 of the

Rules and thereafter, mutation can be permitted only after due

enquiry. It is submitted that there is absolutely no illegality in

the mutation being reverted to the name of late father of the

petitioner as that is a natural consequence of the cancellation of

mutation in favour of the petitioner.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing

for the official respondents, I am of the view that if the petitioner

has a claim that the petitioner is entitled to have an extent over

and above the extent specified in the settlement deed of the year

1984 (through which the late father of the petitioner acquired

title to 92 cents of land), it is for the petitioner to file an

application as contemplated by Rule 10 of the Rules read with

Note-(ii) below that Rule. If such application is filed within a

period of ten days from today, the same shall be considered in

terms of the provisions contained in the Transfer of Registry

Rules 1966, with due notice to the petitioner. The 3 rd respondent

shall take a decision on such application, in accordance with law,

untrammeled by any observations contained in Exts.P9 and P10.

If, after due inquiry, the competent authority (3 rd respondent)

finds that the petitioner is entitled to pay basic land tax in

respect of the property in excess of the property specified in the

settlement deed of 1984, the same shall be permitted.

Since the impugned orders are not being set aside and the

direction is to the petitioner to make an application as

contemplated by Rule 10 of the Rules, I am of the opinion that

notice to the party respondent is not necessary in the writ

petition.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE ajt

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4109/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN RE.SY.NO.147/21 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1993- 94 DATED 29.03.1994 ISSUED BY THE NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN RE.SY.NO.147/21 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1994- 95 DATED 20.03.1995 ISSUED BY THE NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2017-18 DATED 26.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2018-19 DATED 03.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2019-20 DATED 03.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN M-4169/2018/K.DIS DTD 16.09.2019 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DATED 03.10.2019 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN PROCEEDING DCKTM/8098/2019/R2 Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN M-4531/2021/K.DIS DTD 02.05.2022 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN DCKTM/7607/2022/R2 DTD 20.12.2022