IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 30018 of 2007(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- B. MUMTAJ, W/O. M. USMAN, AMBRAPALAYAM, ALAMKADAVU, POLLACHI. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI MR.E.R.VENKATESWARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR , TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUTHUSSERY WEST VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.SANDESH RAJA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 30018/2007-W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AMIN IN EP 114/96 IN O.S. NO.49/85 OF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 02/06/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18/09/2006 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3(a): COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF FEE. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19/03/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 10509/2007 DATED 27/03/2007 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT . EXT.P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29/05/2007 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE STATEMENT FILED BY M.A. MAJEED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D2.15689/06 DATED 16/07/2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/07/2007 OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR, PALAKKAD. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO.D2.15689/06 DATED 30/07/2007. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/08/2007 ISSUED BY THE DIST. SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT PALAKKAD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 30018 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 49/1985 of Sub Court, Palakkad. The said suit was for partition of certain properties. A preliminary decree was passed, which was confirmed in appeal by this Court . Thereafter, a final decree was passed on 30-9-1994, which was also confirmed by this Court. The civil court ordered delivery of the property in execution of the decree and the Amin deputed by the court effected delivery of the properties also by filing a report in that regard. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for mutation of the property and to fix the boundaries. Since the same was not done, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 10509/2007, in which by Ext. P7 judgment, respondents were directed to do the needful. Thereafter, Ext. P10 order was passed by the Tahsildar, Palakkad Taluk directing the Taluk Surveyor to measure the properties and fix the boundaries. Thereafter, Ext. P12 order was passed by the 1st respondent, in which it has been stated that because the property has not been sub-divided, the boundaries cannot be fixed. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P12 order and to quash the same; (b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to effect mutation in respect of the properties allotted to the petitioner in the final decree passed in O.S.No. 49/1985 of Sub Court, Palakkad, in favour of the petitioner; (c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to enforce the order Ext. P10 passed by the 1st respondent.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent in W.P.C. No. 30018/2007 -: 2 :- support of Ext. P12 order. The main contention therein is that the petitioner has not produced the sketch on the basis of which the Amin had delivered the property of the petitioner and the properties have not been sub-divided. As per the Survey and Boundaries Act, without clear sub divisions, the boundaries cannot be fixed, is the contention raised. It is also stated that the property is in the possession of somebody else. 3. I have heard the parties. 4. Rule 16 of Transfer of Registry Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the revenue authorities to make appropriate changes in the revenue records in accordance with the decrees of civil courts. Naturally, when a decree for partition is made, the properties have to be further sub-divided. That has to be done by the revenue authorities only. Therefore, the 1st respondent cannot state that since the property had not been sub-divided, boundaries cannot be fixed. When a civil court passes a decree, the 1st respondent has a bounden duty to see that appropriate sub division numbers are allotted to the partitioned properties and to effect mutation in the revenue records accordingly. The question of possession does not come into the picture at all because as is stated in the Transfer of Registry Rules, the mutation is only for fiscal purposes and any party who claims right over the property can approach the civil court and the revenue authorities are bound to make appropriate changes in the revenue records on the basis of the decrees of the civil court. In fact, admittedly, there is a decree of the civil court in this case and therefore, the 1st respondent is bound to make appropriate changes in the revenue records in accordance with that decree. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The respondents shall see that appropriate steps are taken to W.P.C. No. 30018/2007 -: 3 :- sub divide the properties in accordance with the decree of the civil court and effect mutation of the properties in accordance with the civil court decree. If necessary, they themselves shall measure the properties and prepare a sketch in accordance with the decree of the civil court. The fact that the petitioner or anybody else has not produced the sketch is no ground for rejecting the request of the petitioner. The above exercise shall be taken up and completed by the respondents, if necessary, with the help of the Taluk Surveyor as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, of course, with notice to the parties. For this purpose, Ext. P12 is quashed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/