KUNJUMUHAMMED (EXPIRED) and others v. THE TAHSILDAR AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK OFFICE and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- VIJU ABRAHAM
- Judgment Date
- 2024-02-21
- Court Decision / Holding
- Ext.P14 is set aside to the extent the property comprised in Survey No. 436/11 (0.5847 hectares) is treated as 'Nilam'. The 2nd respondent Tahsildar (LR), Ambalappuzha, is directed to reconsider the matter in light of the Indira P.S. judgment, after affording hearing to the petitioners, and to finalize the proceedings within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
- Final Disposition
- Partial relief granted. The Ext.P14 directive to treat Survey No. 436/11 as Nilam is set aside, with a remand to the Tahsildar (LR) Ambalappuzha to reconsider the matter after hearing, in light of Indira P.S. and Others v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Another, and to conclude within two months.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- KUNJUMUHAMMED(EXPIRED) AGED 85 YEARS S/O ABOOBACKER MUSLIYAR
- AMINA AGED 80 YEARS W/O KUNJUMUHAMMED
- RIYAS AGED 41 YEARS S/O MOHAMMED KUNJU
- RAMLA BEEVI AGED 60 YEARS W/O PAREETHU KUNJU ASHAN
- AMINA MOL AGED 31 YEARS W/O RIYAS
- HASEENA AGED 49 YEARS D/O KUNJUMOHAMMED
- ADDL P7, NABEESA D/O KUNJUMUHAMMED
- ADDL P8, SEENATH D/O KUNJUMUHAMMED
- ADDL P9, JUMAILATH D/O KUNJUMUHAMMED
- ADDL P10, MAHEEN KUTTY S/O KUNJUMUHAMMED
- ADDL P11, NAZAR M K S/O KUNJUMUHAMMED
Respondents
- 1 THE TAHSILDAR AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK OFFICE, SDV SCHOOL ROAD KIDANGAMPARAMP, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688013
- 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L.A AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK OFFICE, SDV SCHOOL ROAD KIDANGAMPARAMP, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688013
- 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MANNANCHERRY VILLAGE OFFICER, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688538
- 4 ADDL R4, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR , THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA .
- 5 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KIIFBI UNIT 2,CHERTHALA . ADDL R4 & ADDL R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09-11-2023 IN IA 2/2023 .
- 6 ADDL R6, THE TAHASILDAR (LR) AMBALAPUZHA. ADDL R6 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21-02-2024 IN WP(C)28212/2022
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • K.R.PRATHISH
Counsels for Respondents
- • P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN
- • S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD)
- • MANASI.M GIFFIN SHALOO
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition challenges Ext. P14 proceedings that sought to rectify the classification of Survey No. 436/11 by converting the land’s status from purayidam to nilam in the BTR records. The petitioners claim ownership and possession of the property, which is shown as purayidam in tax receipts Exts. P1 and P3, and is supported by Exts. P6 (BTR) and Exts. P7 and P9 (Thandapper accounts), which collectively indicate purayidam status. They rely on Ext. P12 (certificate of the Agricultural Officer) to emphasise that the property is purayidam and not included in the data bank. The petitioners contend that the BTR is a vital statutory document whose entries cannot be simply ignored, and that the description in the BTR cannot be disturbed merely because older records show a different classification in settlement registers. They rely on the judgment in Indira P. S. and Others v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Another (2020 (4) KHC 33), arguing that vital statutory records must be given due regard. The 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under Ext. P14 to correct the BTR from Nilam to Purayidam, which the petitioners challenge. The High Court, applying Indira’s ruling, holds that the matter requires reconsideration by the Tahsildar (LR) and, accordingly, sets aside Ext. P14 to the extent that Survey No. 436/11 (0.5847 ha) is treated as Nilam, directing a hearing and final reconsideration within two months.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners submit that the property under Survey No. 436/11 is purayidam as shown in the tax receipts (Exts. P1, P3), in the Thandapper accounts (Exts. P7, P9) and is supported by Ext. P12 (Agricultural Officer’s certificate). They contend that the Basic Tax Register (BTR) is a vital statutory document whose entries cannot be ignored, and that altering its description would distort the true nature of the land, contrary to the record in Exts. P1–P3 and P6. Relying on Indira P.S. and Others v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Another, they urge reconsideration of the BTR’s description rather than a unilateral change. The petitioners seek setting aside Ext. P14 to the extent that the property is treated as Nilam and demand an opportunity of hearing, with final proceedings within two months of delivery of the judgment.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents advocate correcting the BTR classification in accordance with law, maintaining that the BTR description must reflect the property’s status and that Ext. P14 was issued to rectify the record from Nilam to Purayidam. They emphasize that the BTR constitutes a vital statutory document and that corrections may be necessary to align with documentary evidence and land records. They contend that the matter requires proper application of legal procedure, including hearing the petitioners, and a timely final decision in light of existing statutory requirements.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indira P. S. and Others v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Another | 2020 (4) KHC 33 | Positive | The judgment is cited and applied to emphasize that the BTR is a vital statutory document whose entries cannot be ignored; the High Court uses it as a basis to direct reconsideration by the Tahsildar. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against KUNJUMUHAMMED (EXPIRED) and others v. THE TAHSILDAR AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK OFFICE and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.