Skip to content


M.Aboobacker Vs. the District Collector - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantM.Aboobacker
RespondentThe District Collector
Excerpt:
.....--------------------------- appendix petitioner(s)' exhibits ------------------------ exhibit p1. true copy of the sale deed no.4269/12 executed in favour of the petitioner. exhibit p2. true copy of the application dated1810.13 submitted by the petitioner under the right to information act. exhibit p3. true copy of the letter no.d2 19091/13 dated29/13 issued by the2d respondent to the3d respondent. exhibit p4. true copy of the letter dated249/13 issued by the3d respondent to the2d respondent. exhibit p5. true copy of the order dated2212/12 in i.a.no.2934/12 in o.p no.1565/12 of the family court, kollam. exhibit p6. true copy of the judgment dated3110.2013 in wp(c) no.26727/2013. exhibit p7. true copy of the order no.d22-19091/2013 dated2612/2013 issued by the2d respondent......
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE11H DAY OF FEBRUARY201422ND MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 4143 of 2014 (P) --------------------------- WRIT PETITIONER: ---------------- M.ABOOBACKER, AGED39YEARS S/O.M.S A VEERAN, AYIKATTUTHEKKETHIL, KEERIKADU KAYAMKULAM P.O., KARTHIKAPALLY - 690 502. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM - 690 501.

2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPALLY - 690 518.

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RDO, KOLLAM - 690 501. SRI.K.C.VINCENT, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1102-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RKC WP(C).No. 4143 of 2014 (P) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------ EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4269/12 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED1810.13 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D2 19091/13 DATED29/13 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE3D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED249/13 ISSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT TO THE2D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED2212/12 IN I.A.NO.2934/12 IN O.P NO.1565/12 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED3110.2013 IN WP(C) NO.26727/2013. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

NO.D22-19091/2013 DATED2612/2013 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL RKC TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

---------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.4143 of 2014 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2014 JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the rejection of the claim for effecting mutation in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed bearing No.4269/12 of SRO, Ochira. Since no positive action was being taken by the concerned respondent the petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.26727 of 2013 which was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment directing the second respondent to consider the application and to pass appropriate orders within six weeks as specified therein. Pursuant to the said verdict the matter was considered and Ext.P7 order was passed on 26.12.2013 whereby the claim has been rejected referring to some interim orders passed by the Family Court, Kollam which according to the petitioner did not correct or sustainable and hence the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is covered by the W.P.(C). No.4143 of 2014 ..2.. decisions tendered by this Court in Kuriakose Elias Trust for Communication and Development v. Principal Secretary Department of Revenue and others [2009(2) KHC602 and Joseph Kurian v. Village Officer [2010 KHC6224. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits with reference to the materials on record that reasons for declaring the relief to the petitioner as per Ext.P7 is with reference to a specific injunction order passed by the Family Court and that the decisions sought to be relied on by the petitioner are as such not applicable to the case in hand. However learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned order is only by way of attachment as borne by Ext.P5 and if it is an attachment or an order of injunction then nothing bars the way of the revenue authority to effect mutation more so in view of the law declared by this Court on the point. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Ext.P5 interim order was passed only after the execution of the sale deed and as such it cannot have any significance in so far as the name of the petitioner is concerned.

4. After hearing both sides, this Court finds that the W.P.(C). No.4143 of 2014 ..3.. petitioner is having an effective alternative remedy by way of rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 before the RDO/third respondent. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is relegate to approach the third respondent by availing the statutory remedy without prejudice to the rights and liberties in this regard. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. rkc


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //