IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 31042 of 2008(U) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------- UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR.S., SREERAMAPURAM, THETTIKUNNU, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. 4. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAVANA VILLAGE, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. SMT. RADHAMMA, AJITH BHAVANAM, KANNANCODE WARD, ADOOR VILLAGE, ADOOR P.O. 7. SMT. SANTHADEVI AMMA, VADACOTTU PUTHEN VEEDU, NETTAYAM CHERRY, ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims title to an extent of 2 acres of property under Exhibit P1 sale deed dated 14.7.1981 stated to have been executed by his maternal aunt. It is stated that the land scheduled to Exhibit P1 sale deed is part of a larger extent of 5 acres and 20 cents, which was held by the vendor under Exhibit P1. Mutation in relation to the property was effected in the year 1981 and petitioner has been continuing in possession of the property on the strength of the title deed derived under Exhibit P1, he contends. He also refers to the suits filed by strangers in the year 1971 claiming right over the same property and the fact that he was defending the same and further fact that suits were decreed in favour of the defendant therein. Respondents 6 and 7 are maternal aunts of the petitioner namely the daughters of the petitioner's grand mother. They have raised a claim W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 2 over the property covered by Exhibit P1, on the ground that they are natural legal heirs of the vendor under Exhibit P1. They therefore filed O.S No.836 of 2004 before the Additional Munsiff Court, Kollam inter alia, seeking to set aside the sale deed and also for an injunction. Petitioner submits that claim for interim injunction was considered and allowed in his favour, as evidenced by Exhibit P5. Respondents 6 and 7 approached the 4th respondent for changing the mutation of the property covered by Exhibit P1 which already stands in the name of the petitioner. For this purpose, the Additional Tahasildar directed the Village Officer to conduct an enquiry. Petitioner submits that Village Officer conducted the enquiry and forwarded Exhibit P6 report which makes a reference to the contentions of the petitioner and the order passed by the Civil Court as also the pendency of the Civil suit filed by respondents 6 and 7 before the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam. Petitioner submits that in the light of the above report, the Tahasildar should have dropped any proceedings which were in contemplation. But this does not seem to be so, as W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 3 evidenced by Exhibit P7 by which he has issued a notice. Petitioner therefore challenges the proceedings before the Tahasildar. Dispute as regards the title to the property covered by Exhibit P1 to the extent to which respondents 6 and 7 have raised a claim over Exhibit P1 sale deed is pending before the Additional Munsiff Court, Kollam. Exhibits P4 and P5 would evidence the fact that the Civil Court has prima facie entered a finding in favour of the petitioner. At any rate the revenue authorities are always bound to act on the findings entered into by a competent court either as regards the title to the property or any other right which is claimed by any person in relation to the same property. This aspect should be specifically looked into by the Additional Tahadilsdar. These aspects are reflected in Exhibit P6 report submitted by the Village Officer. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the aspects mentioned in Exhibit P6 and then pass a reasoned order with notice to the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 before further W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 4 proceeding with any enquiry as contemplated under Exhibit P7. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of writ petition before the 4th respondent for compliance. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 5 Petitioner claims title to an extent of 2 acres of property under Exhibit P1 sale deed dated 14.1………….. stated to have been executed on maternal ground. It is stated that the document scheduled to Exhibit P1 sale deed is part of the larger extent of 5 acre and 20 cents, which hold ownership the vendor under Exhibit P1…………..to Exhibit P1 mutation in relation to the property was effected in the year 1981 and petitioner has been continuing in possession of the property on the strength of the title deed derived under Exhibit P1, he also refers to suit filed by a stranger in the year 1981 over the same property and the fact that he was defending the same and further fact that suits were decreed in favour of the defendant therein. Respondents 6 and 7 maternal aunts of the petitioner namely the daughters of the petitioner, petitioner grant mother. They have sought the claim of tile over the property covered by Exhibit P1, on the ground that they are naturally legal heirs of the vendor under Exhibit P1. They therefore filed O.S836 of …….before the Additional Munsiff Court,, kollam inter alia, seeking to set aside the sale de3ed and also W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 6 seeking an injunction. Petitioner submits that claim for interim injunction was considered and have beedn passed in his favour as evidenfed by Exhibit P5. and affirmed by the District Court, as evidenced by Exhibit P5. petitioners 6 and 7 have approached the 4th respondent for changing the mutation of the property covered by Exhibit P1 which already stands in hisa name. For this purpose, the Additional Tahasildar directed the Village Officer to conduct an enquiry. Petitioner submits that Village Officer conducted the enquiry and forwarded Exhibit P6 report makes a reference to the contentions of the petitioner and the orders [passed by the Civil Court as also the penency of the Civil Court filed petitioners 6 and 7 before the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam. Petitioner submits that in the light by the Tahasildar should have dropped any proceedings which was in contemplation. But this does not seem to be so, as evidenced by Exhibit P by which he has issued a notice. Petitioner therefore challenges the proceedings before the …………… The dispute as regards the title to the property W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 7 covered by Exhibit P1 to the extent to which respondents 6 and 7 have sought for …………of Exhibit P1 sale deed is pending before the Additional Munsiff Court. Exhibits P4 and P5 would evidence the fact that the Civil Court has prima facie entered a finding in favour of the petitioner at anyu rate the revenue authorities had always bound to any finding givben by a competent authority as regards the title to the property or any other right which is claimed by any person in relation to the same property. This aspect has been specifically looked into by the Additional Tahadilsdar. These aspects are reflected to in Exhibit P7 representation submitted by the Village Officer. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the aspects mentioned in…… …as also Exhibit P6 then pass a reasoned order with notice to the petitioner and respondents 6 amd 7 before further proceeding with any enquiry or any other matter as contemplated under Exhibit P7. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of writ petition before the 4th respondent for W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 8 compliance. W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 9 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 10 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 11 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 12 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 13 Petitioner claims title to an extent of 2 acres of property under Exhibit P1 sale deed dated 14.1………….. stated to have been executed on maternal ground. It is stated that the document scheduled to Exhibit P1 sale deed is part of the larger extent of 5 acre and 20 cents, which hold ownership the vendor under Exhibit P1…………..to Exhibit P1 mutation in relation to the property was effected in the year 1981 and petitioner has been continuing in possession of the property on the strength of the title deed derived under Exhibit P1, he also refers to suit filed by a stranger in the year 1981 over the same property and the fact that he was defending the same and further fact that suits were decreed in favour of the defendant therein. Respondents 6 and 7 maternal aunts of the petitioner namely the daughters of the petitioner, petitioner grant mother. They have sought the claim of tile over the property covered by Exhibit P1, on the ground that they are naturally legal heirs of the vendor under Exhibit P1. They therefore filed O.S836 of …….before the Additional Munsiff Court,, kollam inter alia, seeking to set aside the sale de3ed and also W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 14 seeking an injunction. Petitioner submits that claim for interim injunction was considered and have beedn passed in his favour as evidenfed by Exhibit P5. and affirmed by the District Court, as evidenced by Exhibit P5. petitioners 6 and 7 have approached the 4th respondent for changing the mutation of the property covered by Exhibit P1 which already stands in hisa name. For this purpose, the Additional Tahasildar directed the Village Officer to conduct an enquiry. Petitioner submits that Village Officer conducted the enquiry and forwarded Exhibit P6 report makes a reference to the contentions of the petitioner and the orders [passed by the Civil Court as also the penency of the Civil Court filed petitioners 6 and 7 before the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam. Petitioner submits that in the light by the Tahasildar should have dropped any proceedings which was in contemplation. But this does not seem to be so, as evidenced by Exhibit P by which he has issued a notice. Petitioner therefore challenges the proceedings before the …………… The dispute as regards the title to the property W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 15 covered by Exhibit P1 to the extent to which respondents 6 and 7 have sought for …………of Exhibit P1 sale deed is pending before the Additional Munsiff Court. Exhibits P4 and P5 would evidence the fact that the Civil Court has prima facie entered a finding in favour of the petitioner at anyu rate the revenue authorities had always bound to any finding givben by a competent authority as regards the title to the property or any other right which is claimed by any person in relation to the same property. This aspect has been specifically looked into by the Additional Tahadilsdar. These aspects are reflected to in Exhibit P7 representation submitted by the Village Officer. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the aspects mentioned in…… …as also Exhibit P6 then pass a reasoned order with notice to the petitioner and respondents 6 amd 7 before further proceeding with any enquiry or any other matter as contemplated under Exhibit P7. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of writ petition before the 4th respondent for W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 16 compliance. W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 17 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 18 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 19 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 20 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 21 Petitioner claims title to an extent of 2 acres of property under Exhibit P1 sale deed dated 14.1………….. stated to have been executed on maternal ground. It is stated that the document scheduled to Exhibit P1 sale deed is part of the larger extent of 5 acre and 20 cents, which hold ownership the vendor under Exhibit P1…………..to Exhibit P1 mutation in relation to the property was effected in the year 1981 and petitioner has been continuing in possession of the property on the strength of the title deed derived under Exhibit P1, he also refers to suit filed by a stranger in the year 1981 over the same property and the fact that he was defending the same and further fact that suits were decreed in favour of the defendant therein. Respondents 6 and 7 maternal aunts of the petitioner namely the daughters of the petitioner, petitioner grant mother. They have sought the claim of tile over the property covered by Exhibit P1, on the ground that they are naturally legal heirs of the vendor under Exhibit P1. They therefore filed O.S836 of …….before the Additional Munsiff Court,, kollam inter alia, seeking to set aside the sale de3ed and also W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 22 seeking an injunction. Petitioner submits that claim for interim injunction was considered and have beedn passed in his favour as evidenfed by Exhibit P5. and affirmed by the District Court, as evidenced by Exhibit P5. petitioners 6 and 7 have approached the 4th respondent for changing the mutation of the property covered by Exhibit P1 which already stands in hisa name. For this purpose, the Additional Tahasildar directed the Village Officer to conduct an enquiry. Petitioner submits that Village Officer conducted the enquiry and forwarded Exhibit P6 report makes a reference to the contentions of the petitioner and the orders [passed by the Civil Court as also the penency of the Civil Court filed petitioners 6 and 7 before the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam. Petitioner submits that in the light by the Tahasildar should have dropped any proceedings which was in contemplation. But this does not seem to be so, as evidenced by Exhibit P by which he has issued a notice. Petitioner therefore challenges the proceedings before the …………… The dispute as regards the title to the property W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 23 covered by Exhibit P1 to the extent to which respondents 6 and 7 have sought for …………of Exhibit P1 sale deed is pending before the Additional Munsiff Court. Exhibits P4 and P5 would evidence the fact that the Civil Court has prima facie entered a finding in favour of the petitioner at anyu rate the revenue authorities had always bound to any finding givben by a competent authority as regards the title to the property or any other right which is claimed by any person in relation to the same property. This aspect has been specifically looked into by the Additional Tahadilsdar. These aspects are reflected to in Exhibit P7 representation submitted by the Village Officer. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the aspects mentioned in…… …as also Exhibit P6 then pass a reasoned order with notice to the petitioner and respondents 6 amd 7 before further proceeding with any enquiry or any other matter as contemplated under Exhibit P7. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of writ petition before the 4th respondent for W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 24 compliance. W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 25 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 26 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 27 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 28 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 29 Petitioner claims title to an extent of 2 acres of property under Exhibit P1 sale deed dated 14.1………….. stated to have been executed on maternal ground. It is stated that the document scheduled to Exhibit P1 sale deed is part of the larger extent of 5 acre and 20 cents, which hold ownership the vendor under Exhibit P1…………..to Exhibit P1 mutation in relation to the property was effected in the year 1981 and petitioner has been continuing in possession of the property on the strength of the title deed derived under Exhibit P1, he also refers to suit filed by a stranger in the year 1981 over the same property and the fact that he was defending the same and further fact that suits were decreed in favour of the defendant therein. Respondents 6 and 7 maternal aunts of the petitioner namely the daughters of the petitioner, petitioner grant mother. They have sought the claim of tile over the property covered by Exhibit P1, on the ground that they are naturally legal heirs of the vendor under Exhibit P1. They therefore filed O.S836 of …….before the Additional Munsiff Court,, kollam inter alia, seeking to set aside the sale de3ed and also W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 30 seeking an injunction. Petitioner submits that claim for interim injunction was considered and have beedn passed in his favour as evidenfed by Exhibit P5. and affirmed by the District Court, as evidenced by Exhibit P5. petitioners 6 and 7 have approached the 4th respondent for changing the mutation of the property covered by Exhibit P1 which already stands in hisa name. For this purpose, the Additional Tahasildar directed the Village Officer to conduct an enquiry. Petitioner submits that Village Officer conducted the enquiry and forwarded Exhibit P6 report makes a reference to the contentions of the petitioner and the orders [passed by the Civil Court as also the penency of the Civil Court filed petitioners 6 and 7 before the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam. Petitioner submits that in the light by the Tahasildar should have dropped any proceedings which was in contemplation. But this does not seem to be so, as evidenced by Exhibit P by which he has issued a notice. Petitioner therefore challenges the proceedings before the …………… The dispute as regards the title to the property W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 31 covered by Exhibit P1 to the extent to which respondents 6 and 7 have sought for …………of Exhibit P1 sale deed is pending before the Additional Munsiff Court. Exhibits P4 and P5 would evidence the fact that the Civil Court has prima facie entered a finding in favour of the petitioner at anyu rate the revenue authorities had always bound to any finding givben by a competent authority as regards the title to the property or any other right which is claimed by any person in relation to the same property. This aspect has been specifically looked into by the Additional Tahadilsdar. These aspects are reflected to in Exhibit P7 representation submitted by the Village Officer. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the aspects mentioned in…… …as also Exhibit P6 then pass a reasoned order with notice to the petitioner and respondents 6 amd 7 before further proceeding with any enquiry or any other matter as contemplated under Exhibit P7. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of writ petition before the 4th respondent for W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 32 compliance. W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 33 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 34 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 35 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 36 (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 37 W.P ( C) No.31042 of 2008 38