Kerala High Court
Binil Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 5777 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
BINIL KUMAR
AGED 41 YEARS
VIZAKAM HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY WEST,
CHANGANACHERRY-686 102, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOMY GEORGE
SRI.P.REJINARK
SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KOTTAYAM-686001.
3 THAHASILDAR
CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686101.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VAZHAPPALLY WEST, CHANGANASSERY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686101.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.5777/2013
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.5777 of 2013
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order directing the
4th and 5th respondents and other Revenue
authorities to effect mutation with regard to the
property covered by Exhibit P-1 sale deed and to
collect tax for the same.
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order directing the
respondents 3 and 4 to make necessary changes
in the nature of the property comprised in
Re.survey No. 23/6/3 and 23/6/2 of Vazhappally
West village, in the village records of village
office, Changanacherry Taluk, Kottayam District.
iii. issue any other writ order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
(SIC)
2. When this writ petition came up for consideration,
the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer in this
writ petition is to issue a direction to respondents 4 and 5 and
other revenue authorities to effect mutation to the property
covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. In Ext.P1 sale deed, the property
is mentioned as nikathupurayidom. But the Government
Pleader submitted that as per the BTR, it is shown as Nilam.
The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this
Court in Pareed Salim v. State of Kerala and Others [2012
(4) KHC 79]. The relevant portion of the judgment is
extracted hereunder:
"11. I had occasion to consider a similar issue in the
judgment in W.P.(C) NO. 18900/2012 wherein also
in similar circumstances a rectification deed was
directed to be produced. After referring to the
judgments of this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor's
case (2009 (3) KLT 899) and Jafarkhan v.
Kochumarakkar (2012 (1) KLT 491), it has been
held therein in para 6 as follows:
"6. Therefore, the crucial question is
whether the property is a converted land
and as the description of the property in
the document show that it is shown as
nilam nikathu purayidam, the same will
have to be accepted prima facie for the
purpose of effecting mutation. With
regard to the other aspects, whether any
paddy land has been converted or not is
not a matter for the authorities under the
Transfer of Registry Rules to be gone into.
In that view of the matter, it is not
required that the petitioner should
execute a rectification deed as a pre-
condition for effecting mutation,
especially, the Transfer of Registry Rules
do not insist so."
Similar is the situation herein also."
3. In the light of the above principle, the matter can
be considered by the 4th respondent. To facilitate the 4th
respondent to consider the same, the petitioner can be
allowed to file a representation for mutation and the same will
be considered in the light of the principle in Pareed's case
(supra).
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with following
directions:
1. The petitioner is free to file a
representation for mutation before the
4th respondent, within three weeks from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this judgment. If the 4th respondent is
not the competent authority, the 4th
respondent will forward the same to the
competent authority in accordance with
law.
2. Once such a representation is received,
the 4th respondent/competent authority
will consider the same in the light of the
principle laid down in Pareed Salim v.
State of Kerala and Others [2012 (4)
KHC 79], as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within one month from the
date of receipt of the representation.
3. I make it clear that the correction of
BTR can be made by the petitioner by
filing appropriate application as per the
Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Act.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) /2012
EXHIBIT P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.756/2011
OF SRO CHANGANACHERRY
EXHIBIT P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 1264/2009
OF SRO CHANGANACHERRY
EXHIBIT P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.444/2007 OF
SRO CHANGANACHERRY
EXHIBIT P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 3.2.2011
SHOWING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX BY THE PREVIOUS TITLE
HOLDER SMT. USHA
EXHIBIT P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
22.4.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER AND THE ORDERS PASSED THEREON
BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER AND BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.5.2012
SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE REPAINT PETITIONERS
. EXHIBIT P-7: CERTIFICATE DATED 5.5.2012 ISSUED BY
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER STATING THAT THE PROPERTY
COVERED BY EXHIBIT P-1 IS AT PRESENT LYING AS
'PURAYIDAM' AND IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DATA BANK
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
R3(A) : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.02.2011 OF
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM
R3(B) : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.12.2012
