Vijitha vs Tahsildar (Lr)
2023 Latest Caselaw 11505 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
   WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 36197 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          VIJITHA, AGED 34 YEARS
          W/O PAULSON CYRIAC, NIRAPPEL HOUSE,
          PATTIKKAD POST, CHANOTH,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680652

          BY ADVS.
          ASOK KUMAR K.P.
          ABDUL HAMEED RAFI



RESPONDENTS:

    1     TAHSILDAR (LR),
          THRISSUR TALUK OFFICE, CHEMBUKKAVU,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680020

    2     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          PANANCHERY VILLAGE, PATTIKKAD POST,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680652
          R BY SR.GP ADV.DEEPA NARAYANAN


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 36197 OF 2023       : 2 :


                     JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he is the absolute

owner in possession of 4.05 Ares of land comprised in

Re-Survey No.357/3 in Block No.78 of Pananchery

Village, Thrissur District, obtained by virtue of Ext.P1.

The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application for

mutation before the 2nd respondent. By Ext.P5 order,

the 2nd respondent rejected the same, stating that

revenue recovery proceedings are pending against the

said property for recovery of abkari dues in the name

of his predecessor in interest. Against Ext.P5, the

petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 appeal, which is

pending before the 1st respondent. The grievance of

the petitioner is that Ext.P6 appeal is not so far

considered by the 1st respondent.

2. The petitioner relies on Exts.P7 and P8

judgments of this Court and submits that the

pendency of revenue recovery proceedings shall not

be a bar for effecting mutation. The petitioner also

relies on the judgment of this Court reported in

Thulasibhai v. State of Kerala [2010 (4) KLT 215].

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case,

there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to

consider and dispose of Ext.P6 appeal, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period

of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

With the above direction, the writ petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB

APPENDIX

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P- 1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.4514/2006 DATED 28.10.2006 OF OLLUKKARA SUB REGISTRY.

Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO 270/76 DATED 30.06.2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P- 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 12.10.2022

Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR MUTATION DATED 20.06.2023

Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FORWARDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.07.2023

Exhibit P- 6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 08.09.2023 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 276/2019 DATED 07.01.2019 BETWEEN BALAKRISHNAN MALAYIL VS. STATE OF KERALA

Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 08.10.2014 IN WP(C) NO. 24948/2014