Mathew George vs Tahsildar

Muralee Krishna S, J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to effect mutation of the properties covered by Exts P2 and P4 documents stand in the name of the petitioner.

The property having an extent of 6 acres and 42 cents situated in survey No.4/1-90 of Parathodu Village was assigned to the father of the petitioner T.M John as per Ext P1 patta dated 09.12.1980 issued under High Range Colonization Scheme. T.M John settled an extent of 40 Ares 47 square meters of property in the name of the petitioner as per Ext P2 settlement deed dated 03.09.1993 bearing No.1347/1993. On the same day, T.M John settled another extent of 20 Ares and 20 square meters in favour of one Philomina George as per Ext P3 settlement deed bearing No.1348/1993. Later, Philomina George sold the property to the petitioner as per Ext P4 sale deed dated 04.11.1998 bearing No.2574/1/1998. The petitioner effected mutation in his name and paid land tax. Meanwhile, the Government conducted a resurvey in the District. But at the time of resurvey, the petitioner was not in station as he was working at Goa. Due to non-production of his title deeds by the petitioner, the name of his father was incorporated in the survey records. According to the petitioner, his request for effecting mutation of the property in his name was refused by the 2nd respondent-Village officer, Parathodu Village saying that he has to obtain an order from this Court.

The 3rd respondent-District Collector, Idukki District filed a counter affidavit dated 11.11.2024 admitting all the averments in the writ petition, except that of the refusal of 2nd respondent to effect mutation. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the mutation of the property attracting Transfer of Registry Rules has already been effected in the name of the petitioner. The only proceedings remaining are under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 ( ‘Act’, in short) to correct the discrepancies in resurvey records. The petitioner instead of taking steps to correct the mistake in the survey records, straight away approached this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent-Village Officer refused to effect mutation of the property in the name of the petitioner, even though the petitioner approached the Village Officer with that request on several occasions.

The learned Government Pleader submitted that the property is already mutated in the name of the petitioner. In the resurvey records, the property happened to be shown in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner only for the reason that the petitioner failed to produce his title deeds at the time of resurvey. If the petitioner approaches the respondents with a proper petition to correct the survey records as provided under Section 13A of the Act, the discrepancy could be corrected in the resurvey records.

The respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the properties covered in Exts P2 and P4 documents. Exts P5 and P6 tax receipts and the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent would show that the mutation of the property was already effected by incorporating the name of the petitioner  in  the  revenue  records.   Admittedly,  the  resurvey records now show the name of the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner, due to the non-production of his title deeds by the petitioner at the time of resurvey.

As per section 13A of the Act, the District Collector may pass orders correcting the mistakes, if he is satisfied with a situation where there is any discrepancy, inaccuracy, defect or mistake of any kind crept in the determination of any boundary in the survey.

The learned government pleader at this juncture submitted that if the petitioner applies for correction in the survey records, that can be carried out in the usual course. In the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent- District Collector, Idukki it is stated that the duty of correcting the survey discrepancies is now entrusted to the Tahsildar (Land Records).

Having considered the materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent-District Collector either by himself or through an officer authorized by him to correct the survey records pertaining to the properties of the petitioner covered in Exts P2 and P4 documents within a time frame, if the petitioner files a proper application before the 3rd respondent-District Collector under Section 13A of the Act.

Under such circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner to move an application under Section 13A of the Act before the 3rd respondent-District Collector, Idukki within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and the 3rd respondent-District Collector shall correct the resurvey records pertaining to the properties of the petitioner covered in Exts P2 and P4 documents, either by himself or through an officer authorised by him, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application.