K.K. Kaladharan v. District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Kakkanad, Ernakulam; Additional Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk Office; Village Officer, Elamkulam Village Office; Sreekumar T.K.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/25TH JYAISHTA, 1939 WP(C).No. 28694 of 2015 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.K.KALADHARAN, MAKEERAM HOUSE, KADAVANTHARA P.O., ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.ASP.KURUP SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- ## 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030. ## 2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 011. ## 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PIN-682 020. ## 4. SREEKUMAR T.K. S/O. KUNJAN T., THOTTARA HOUSE, KADAVANTHARA P.O., ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, PIN-682 020. R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.J.JOSEPH PANIKKASSERY R BY SYAMJI RAM, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28694 of 2015 (J) --------------------------------- : 2 : ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------ P1 : COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1641/99 DTD.20.4.99 IN THE NAME OF SYAMALA. P2 : COPY OF DECREE IN OS NO.767/12 PASSED BY SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. P3 : COPY OF JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HOIN'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.21432/2009. P4 : COPY OF SKETCH ISSUED BY THE SURVEYOR. P5 : COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DTD.6.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6 : COPY OF LETTER DTD.15.10.2014 GIVEN BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT. P7 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DTD.24.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P8 : COPY OF APPEAL NO.S6-24118/14 DTD.29.12.2014 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9 : COPY OF LETTER DTD.17.7.15 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P10 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED IN OS NO.74/2010. P11 : COPY OF DECREE IN OS NO.74/2010. P12 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRP NO.517/2014. P13 : COPY OF REPORT DTD.23.1.15 GIVEN BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -------------------------------- True Copy/ P.A to Judge. rv **DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ------------------------------------------W.P. (C) No. 28694 of 2015 (J) -----------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of June, 2017.** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner Kaladharan, along with his two children, succeeded to his wife's estate. To elaborate, Meenakshi, Kaladharan's mother-in-law, initially, through Ext.P1 dated 20.11.1999, settled 4 cents of land in Elamkulam Village on her daughter i.e., Kaladharan's wife, who died on 31.05.2007. Meenakshi also settled 6 cents of land on her nephew Sreekumar, the 4[th] respondent. This settling of property has led to litigation on different fronts. 2. When Kaladharan attempted to measure the property he had succeeded to, Sreekumar objected to it: he filed O. S. No. 1018 of 2008 before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam; on transfer to the Sub-Court, Ernakulam, the suit was renumbered as O.S. No. 767/2012. As seen from Ext.P2, the Sub-Court, Ernakulam, on W.P.(C.) No. 28694/2015 -2- 10.01.2013 dismissed the suit for Sreekumar's failure to prosecute it. 3. On the other hand, Kaladharan filed W.P.(C) No. 21432 of 2009 showing Sreekumar as one of the respondents. He asserted that the revenue officials had refused to measure the property, despite his repeated requests. This Court allowed the writ petition through Ext.P3 judgment dated 28.02.2014. Complying with the judgment, the revenue officials measured the land and prepared Ext.P4 sketch, too. 4. In 2010, Meenakshi, the mother-in-law, filed O.S. No. 74 of 2010 against her nephew Sreekumar. She filed the suit for a declaration that she is the absolute owner of the property (six cents); in other words, the alleged settlement is of no consequence. She has also sought a mandatory injunction against Sreekumar that he should hand over the vacant possession of the property to her. The Sub Court, Ernakulam, allowed the suit through Ext.P10 judgment dated 11.01.2013. Sreekumar, aggrieved, has filed A.S. No. 43 of 2015 W.P.(C.) No. 28694/2015 -3- before the District Court, Ernakulam against Ext.P10 judgment. 5. Given the fact that Meenakshi died and Kaladharan, the sonin-law, succeeded to that property, too, as class II heir (husband of a predeceased daughter), he wanted to execute the decree in O.S. No. 74 of 2010. To stall that, Sreekumar filed O.S. No. 244 of 2014. 6. In the above factual backdrop and the legal tangles, the revenue officials refused to mutate the property of four cents in Kaladharan's favour when he had asked for it. Aggrieved, he filed this writ petition. 7. Heard Sri A.S.P Kurup, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. None appears for the contesting 4[th] respondent, despite his entering appearance through a counsel. 8. In response to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the Government does not want to entangle itself in avoidable W.P.(C.) No. 28694/2015 -4- litigation. He has further submitted that if Kaladharan gets all the pending litigation cleared, he may as well approach the revenue officials to have the property mutated. Until then, his request cannot be entertained. In other words, the officials' refusal to mutate the records is unexceptionable, says the learned Government Pleader. 9. Indeed, there has been continuous litigation before one forum or another beginning from 2008 between Sreekumar and the successors of Meenakshi, the original owner of the property. At any rate, there is no specific judicial directive from any Court, including this Court, that the revenue officials should not entertain any legitimate request from a person claiming to be the owner of the property. It is trite to observe that mutation is a ministerial act falling short of conferring on any person title to any property. This Court in _Nevin Raju v. S. Basheer and others_[1] has held in paragraph 15 thus: “Under the provisions contained in the Land Tax Act, a holder of land is to pay tax. _Payment of land tax or mutation in favour of the petitioner will not enable the petitioner to claim any better title and it will not in any way affect the adjudication of the disputes between_ 1 2015 (3) KLJ 197 W.P.(C.) No. 28694/2015 -5- _the respondents in the pending civil cases_ , as held in the judgments supra. Going by the provisions contained in Transfer of Registry Rules 1966, there is no impediment for affecting mutation. _Therefore there is no meaning in compelling the petitioner to wait till the disposal of the civil suits, for effecting mutation_ . The right of a bona fide purchaser to enjoy his property cannot be permitted to be defeated merely because somebody files civil suit to settle scores with someone. Petitioner has submitted his application on the strength of Ext.P1 sale deed. Going by the provisions contained in Rule 3 the revenue officials should have effected the mutation immediately after the registration of the sale deed, in which event the petitioner would not have faced with such situations.” (emphasize added) 10. Given the well-established legal position on mutation as ackonwledged in _Navin Raju,_ I allow this writ petition directing the third respondent to entertain the petitioner's request for mutation of the revenue records concerning four cents of property. Needless to observe that the mutation, thus, being effected will not prejudice any person’s, including Sreekumar's, claim, if any, to the property to be recognised by a competent court of law. **DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.** _rv_ W.P.(C.) No. 28694/2015 -6-