IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34684 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHOTHI.M.M, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. MYLAN, MARANGATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, EDAKATTU VAYAL, ARAKKUNNAM VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE PANCHAYATH DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, EDAKKATTUVAYAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EDAKKATTUVAYAL.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. M.M. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O. MAILAN, MARANGATTUKKUNNEL HOUSE, EDAKATTU VAYAL, ARAKUNNAM VIA, ERNAKLAM DISTRICT. R1, R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.34684 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.Going by the facts, the property in question belonged to Mylan. He left behind four children, including the petitioner and the 4th respondent. No testamentary succession is pleaded. The petitioner and one of his sisters made a partition deed. Admittedly, the 4th respondent did not join it. According to the petitioner, a parcel of land is kept apart for the 4th respondent. Acting on that partition deed, the sister who joined that deed created a sale in favour of the petitioner. With this document, the petitioner wanted the change of ownership of the building to be made in the Panchayat's assessment register by showing him as the owner. The panchayat secretary did not take any action. The petitioner moved the Deputy Director of Panchayats, who, in turn, directed the panchayat secretary to act in terms of Rule 17(1) (d) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Building Taxes And The WPC.34684/09 2 Surcharge Thereon) Rules, 1996. The complaint of the petitioner is that in spite of notice having been issued by the secretary, no further steps are taken. 2.Rule 17(1)(b) of the Rules provides for change of name in the assessment register if the officer is satisfied that the rights in relation to the building has gone over to another person by succession. No testamentary having been shown, non testamentary succession opened on the death of Mylan. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that Mylan has four heirs. If that were so, the partition deed by two and a sale deed by one among them to the other, could never be the foundation of an application for transfer of the name of the owner of the building. The provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules and the entitlement of the other children on Mylan should necessarily dissuade the statutory authorities from recording the petitioner's name as the name of the owner in the assessment register merely on the basis of the partition deed and sale deed as held out by the petitioner. WPC.34684/09 3 3.In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any ground to issue any direction. The direction of the Deputy Director in Ext.P5 is without authority of law. That cannot be enforced. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking appropriate remedies before the civil court or in terms of the Transfer of Registry Rules. Communicate copy of this judgment to the third respondent. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.2/12.