M. Kannan vs The Village Officer

V. Giri, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

In the nature of the directions proposed to be issued I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the contesting respondents.

Petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of 2 acres of land under Exhibit-P1 document. Apparently the vendor of the petitioner had obtained the said property in the course of a partition amongst the members of the family effected in the year 1967. The property which was partitioned, among others, was involved in proceedings under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971 and . O.A 333/1976 was instituted before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad. An extent of 18 acres of land was exempted from the provisions of Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971 and according to the petitioner the order of the Forest Tribunal affirmed by this Court in M.F.A No. 374/1987 and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Later, the petitioner claims that his vendor came into possession 18 acres of land which is claimed to have been exempted and five acres of the same was sold in favour of the petitioner''s brother and another 7.50 acres of land was sold in favour of one Velayudhan and yet another 3.50 extent of land was sold in favour of Smt. Valsala, the wife of the petitioner. Altogether out of the the entire extent of 18 acres; remaining two acres has been purchased by the petitioner under Exhibit-P1, it is contended. Petitioner submits that the assignors of the aforementioned document later executed cancellation deeds. There is a civil suit pending between the assigners and assignees.

In the meanwhile, petitioner applied for effecting mutation of the property purchased under Exhibit- P1. The Village Officer on enquiry felt that the survey sub division in respect of the property purchased by the petitioner has not been currently shown. So also the survey sub division of the property assigned in favour of three different persons as mentioned above by the vendor of the petitioner has also not been correctly known. The matter was heard on a motion made by the petitioner and by Exhibit-P6 judgment which was substantially affirmed in Exhibit-P7 also, the second respondent was directed to look into the claim made by the petitioner and take a decision thereon.

By Exhibit-P8 the 2nd respondent proceeded to give an expressing opinion that the boundaries of the properties shown in Exhibit-P1 executed by the vendor of the petitioner does not tally with the report submitted by the Taluk Surveyor, on the basis of which Exhibit-P8 order has been passed and that therefore the parties may have to get corrected documents executed by their respective vendors. Petitioner did not challenge Exhibit-P8 order. Later, petitioner found that steps are taken by the contesting respondents to remit the basic tax in respect of the properties that they had purchased from the vendor of the petitioner. This the petitioner objects on the ground that if possession certificate came to be issued on the basis of such mutation, it would prejudice his interests. He has therefore filed Exhibit-P11 objections before the 1st respondent.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to look into Exhibit-P11 objections also after notice to the petitioner and respondents 5 to 8 before taking any decision under the Transfer of Registry Rules in the matter of mutation of the property claimed by the petitioner as well as respondents 5 to 8.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance.