AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gopinath P, J
Petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by Exts.P9 and P10 orders issued by the 2nd respondent and 1st respondent respectively under the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’).
Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner’s late father (James Mathew) was in absolute ownership and possession of about 92 cents of land by virtue of a settlement deed executed in the year 1984. During Re.Survey proceedings, the petitioner’s late father was found to be in enjoyment and possession of a total extent of 107 cents of land. Petitioner’s late father executed a settlement deed in the year 1999, settling an extent of 50 cents of land in favour of the petitioner. On the death of petitioner’s father, by virtue of the stipulations contained in the Will executed by him, the remaining 57 Cents of land also bequeathed to the petitioner with a life interest reserved in favour of petitioner’s mother. Petitioner’s mother executed a relinquishment deed, relinquishing her life interest, in the year 2018. Thereafter, the entire property, including the excess land [found to be in the possession and enjoyment of petitioner’s late father during Re.Survey] was mutated in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was also paying basic land tax for the entire extent of property. The mutation effected in favour of the petitioner has now been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner is in possession of excess land .
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner’s late father had been in enjoyment and possession of a larger extent of property which was identified during Re.Survey proceedings, merely because the settlement deed of 1984 described the extent of land to be only 92 Cents, the respondents could not have found in any manner that the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner for a total extent of 107 Cents is bad in any manner. It submitted that even in respect of the land over which the petitioner has no document of title, the petitioner is entitled to mutation . Reference is made in this regard to Rule 10 of the Rules and in particular to ‘Note-(ii)’ below that Rule. It is also submitted that, following cancellation of mutation effected in favour of the petitioner, the mutation in respect of the property is reverted in the name of late father of the petitioner and that, at any rate, cannot be done.
Learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that that it was necessary to cancel the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner for the entire extent of 107 Cents as the documents of title (through which the petitioner claims) indicate that the petitioner is entitled to ownership and possession of only 92 Cents, which is the extent described in the settlement deed of 1984 through which the late father of the petitioner obtained the property. It is submitted that if the petitioner has any claim over any further extent, obtained by way of any adverse possession etc., petitioner has to make an application as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules and thereafter, mutation can be permitted only after due enquiry. It is submitted that there is absolutely no illegality in the mutation being reverted to the name of late father of the petitioner as that is a natural consequence of the cancellation of mutation in favour of the petitioner.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, I am of the view that if the petitioner has a claim that the petitioner is entitled to have an extent over and above the extent specified in the settlement deed of the year 1984 (through which the late father of the petitioner acquired title to 92 cents of land), it is for the petitioner to file an application as contemplated by Rule 10 of the Rules read with Note-(ii) below that Rule. If such application is filed within a period of ten days from today, the same shall be considered in terms of the provisions contained in the Transfer of Registry Rules 1966, with due notice to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent shall take a decision on such application, in accordance with law, untrammeled by any observations contained in Exts.P9 and P10. If, after due inquiry, the competent authority (3rd respondent) finds that the petitioner is entitled to pay basic land tax in respect of the property in excess of the property specified in the settlement deed of 1984, the same shall be permitted.
Since the impugned orders are not being set aside and the direction is to the petitioner to make an application as contemplated by Rule 10 of the Rules, I am of the opinion that notice to the party respondent is not necessary in the writ petition.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.