Cyril Mathew and Andrews Joseph M v State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** ## **MONDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 9TH MAGHA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 24476 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 CYRIL MATHEW AGED 51 YEARS S/O. K.J.MATHAI KAVALAVAZHIKKAL HOUSE, KADANADU KARA, KODUMBIDI.P.O KADANAD VILLAGE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT MOB:9447067364, PIN - 686651 2 ANDREWS JOSEPH.M AGED 59 YEARS S/O.MARIYA JOSEPH MADONNA VILLA, DOOR.NO.414 LOWER CRUZPETT, WELLINGTON BAREX.P.O, CONOOR, NEELGIRI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU STATE, PIN - 643231 BY ADVS. V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) N.RAJESH GOPAKUMAR P. JERRY JAISON ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DEVIKULAM IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685613 3 THE TAHSILDAR(LR) PEERUMEDU IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685531 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VAGAMON IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685503 5 PRASANNAN AGED 47 YEARS S/O.RAMANKUTTY VASU, VELASSERIL HOUSE, PULINKATTA MATHAIPPARA.P.O, VAGAMON VILLAGE IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - **W.P.(C).No.24476 of 2023 2** 685501 6 ADDL.R6: SREEKUMAR, AGED 52, S/O. SIVARAMAN, VELASSERIL HOUSE, PULINGATTA KARA, MATHAIPPARA.P.O., WAGAMON VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685505. (IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/11/2023 IN IA 1/2023 OF WP(C)) IDUKKI DISTRICT ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) GP – AJITH VISWANATHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **W.P.(C).No.24476 of 2023 3** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM,J** ## **-------------------** ## **W.P.(C).No.24476 of 2023** ## **--------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of January, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the 4[th] respondent whereby the request made by the petitioners for mutation has been declined taking a stand that there is a suit pending as OS No.114/2023 before the Munsiff's Court, Peermedu. 2. Petitioners obtained 12.80 Ares of property situated in old Survey No.654/354/3 of Vagamon Village in Peermedu Taluk as per Ext.P1 sale deed No.1437/2023 of Peermedu SRO. As per Ext.P1 an extent of 6.73 Ares scheduled as item No.1 in Ext.P1 belongs to the 1[st] petitioner and an extent of 6.07 ares scheduled as item No.2 in Ext.P1 belongs to the 2[nd] petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P1 would show that the 5[th] respondent herein, ie., the vendor of Ext.P1 property, was the owner in occupation of a total extent of 31.54 Ares of property on the basis of partition deed ## **W.P.(C).No.24476 of 2023 4** No.2402/2022 of Peermedu SRO and it is from this 31.54 Ares that he sold 12.80 Ares of properties to the petitioners. The 5[th] respondent has been paying land tax also in respect of the said 31.54 Ares of properties under Thandaper No.11702, as is evident from Ext.P2 tax receipt. After purchasing the property from the 5[th] respondent the petitioners submitted an application before the 4[th] respondent for mutation of the respective properties in their names, which has not been acted upon. As per Ext.P3 there is a suit pending as OS No.114/2023 before the Munsiff's Court, Peermedu filed by the additional 6[th] respondent. Though notice was issued to the additional 6[th] respondent, there is no appearance on his behalf. Petitioners submit that the issue is covered by a catena of judgments of this Court including the judgment in _**Sivasankaran K. V. Tahsildar, Manjeri and Others 2017 (3) KHC 855)**_ wherein paragraphs 7 and 8 which held as follows: “7. Now, coming to the objection of the third respondent, the sister of the appellant. The third respondent has not denied execution of the partition deed. All she says was that she was misled into ## **W.P.(C).No.24476 of 2023 5** signing the same. She has now filed a suit for getting over Exhibit P1. The suit is pending. But as of now the position is that there is a registered partition deed. Execution whereof is not denied, registration whereof is not denied. That being the position, in our view, the Tahsildar was correct when he first ordered that he would not take cognizance of the objection of the third respondent. We thus, find that the impugned order of the Tahsildar in the writ petition and the direction of the learned single Judge authorising the Tahsildar to hear and decide the dispute cannot be held to be correct. If there is serious bona fide disputes raised with regard to right, title and interest in the property then obviously, Tahsildar is not the authority to decide the same. It is a civil court of competent jurisdiction alone which can decide the matter. 8. As noted above, the dispute raised by the third respondent, the sister, is yet to be considered by the civil court where the suit is pending. She did not deny execution of the partition deed. Therefore, so far as the mutation authorities are concerned, the Tahsildar ought to have proceeded on the basis of the application filed by the appellant leaving the sister to move civil court. We may notice that it is now well settled that mutation entries in revenue records by itself does not create any right, title or interest in the property. It is a record only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. (See Balwant Singh and Another v. Daulat Singh (Dead) by Lr.s ad Others [(1997) 7 SCC 137]). Right, title or interest is to be decided, in case of any dispute, only by civil court of competent jurisdiction.” This Court in the said judgment has held that so far as authorities are concerned they have proceed on the basis of the application filed by the ## **W.P.(C).No.24476 of 2023 6** parties as mutation entries in the revenue records by itself does not create any right, title and possession over the property and the record is only for the purpose of collection of land revenue, and that right, title and interest is to be decided, in case of any dispute, only by Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader, who upon instructions submitted that Ext.P3 is an appealable order before the Tahsildar. Taking into consideration the declaration of law by a division bench of this Court in **Sivasankaran'** s case cited supra, whereby the aggrieved party has to agitate the claim before a competent civil court, which has been done in the present case by filing OS No.114/2023, and the finding in the judgment of the division bench that the mutation itself will not create any right, title or interest in the property and the same is only for the purpose of collection of land revenue and further finding that, right, title or interest of any party is to be decided, in case of any dispute, only by Civil ## **W.P.(C).No.24476 of 2023 7** Court of competent jurisdiction, I am of the view that matter has to be reconsidered by the 4[th] respondent. In view of the same, Ext.P3 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 4[th] respondent to reconsider the request made by the petitioner in accordance with law, taking into consideration the dictum laid down by this Court in **Sivasankaran** 's case cited supra, a copy of which shall be made available by the petitioners before the 4[th] respondent. A decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and respondents 5 and 6 and any other affected parties. The writ petition is disposed of as above. **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** pm **W.P.(C).No.24476 of 2023 8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24476/2023** PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1437/2023 OF PEERUMEDU SRO DATED 24.04.2023. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF TAX PAID RECEIPT ISSUED FROM VAGAMON VILLAGE OFFICE TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 01.04.2023 BEARING NO. KL0602020104. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO. 334/2023 DATED 29.05.2023 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THANDAPER REGISTER OF THANDAPER NO. 11702 OF VAGAMON VILLAGE. Exhibit 5 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S NO. 114/2023 FILED BY SREEKUMAR S/O.SIVARAMAN OF VELASSERIL HOUSE BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT PEERUMEDU ON 03.04.2023. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 05.06.2023.