Biju Peter vs The Tahsildar (Lr)
2024 Latest Caselaw 13955 Ker

Kerala High Court

Biju Peter vs The Tahsildar (Lr) on 28 May, 2024

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
        TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024/7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO.23383 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

            BIJU PETER, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.P.M PATHROSE,
            PALAKKADAN HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALM,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691.

            BY ADVS.
            K.R.PRATHISH
            P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN
            S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD)
            JOEL CHALAMANA


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE TAHSILDAR (LR), KOTHAMANGALAM, 4TH FLOOR,
            REVENUE TOWER, SH 16, KOTHAMANGALAM,
            ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686666.

    2       THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
            KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686666.

            BY ADV. SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C) No.23383 of 2023
                                  - 2 -

                             JUDGMENT

Dated, this the 28th May, 2024

Petitioner is aggrieved for reason of not effecting

mutation in respect to his property. The reasons

espoused are two dimensional. The first, is the

pendency of a partition suit and the second, the

pendency of a proceeding under the Land Conservancy

Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Government Pleader on behalf of the

respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that

the partition suit has been decreed, wherein the

petitioner's property has been excluded from the

purview of partition. Therefore, the first ground

cannot stand in the way. As regards the second, it

is the contention of the petitioner that merely

because the Land Conservancy proceedings, which was

- 3 -

initiated in the year 1998 is pending, mutation

cannot be refused. It is also pointed out that the

Land Conservancy proceedings is pending against the

predecessor of the petitioner; and not the

petitioner.

4. Learned Government Pleader argued to sustain the

action of the Village Officer in not effecting

mutation. Learned Government Pleader would clarify

that it is not the pendency of the Land Conservancy

proceedings that stands in the way, but mutation is

not done for the dues in terms of the Land

Conservancy Act, which is liable to be paid by the

petitioner's predecessor.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on

both sides, this Court finds little merit in the

objection raised by the 2nd respondent/Village

Officer. This Court is of the opinion that mutation

cannot be refused for the reason that dues under the

Land Conservancy Act has not been cleared. The

- 4 -

Transfer of Registry Rules itself provides for

revision of Pattas based on court orders etc., vide

Rule 16 thereof.

6. In the circumstances, there will be a direction

to the 2nd respondent to effect mutation of the

property in the name of the petitioner, without

prejudice to the right to initiate appropriate

proceedings for recovery of the dues, if any, under

the Land Conservancy Act, in accordance with law.

This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE ww

- 5 -

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23383/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.

6366/11 OF KOTHAMANGALAM SUB REGISTRY OFFICE DATED 24.10.2011.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.

3711/2011 OF KOTHAMANGALAM SUB REGISTRY OFFICE DATED 22.06.2011.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPPER ACCOUNT DETAILS DATED 27.06.2023 IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER PREDECESSOR JACOB.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN O.S NO.25 OF 2010 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MUTATION APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.07.2023.