Skip to content


Biju @ Kuriakose @ Bygu G.Thomas Vs. the State of Kerala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantBiju @ Kuriakose @ Bygu G.Thomas
RespondentThe State of Kerala
Excerpt:
.....by its secretary to department of revenue secretariat, thiruvananthapuram - 695001 2. the revenue divisional officer, office of the revenue divisional officer, muvattupuzha, ernakulam district - 683011 3. the tahsildar, kothamangalam taluk, ernakulam, kothamangalam, ernakulam district - 683110 4. the village officer, village office, kothamangalam, ernakulam district -683110 5. xavier thomas, thakidiyil house, urulanthanny p.o., kuttanpuzha chelad, kothamangalam, pin-686681.6. t.t. joseph,thakidiyil house, chelad.p.o., kothamangalam-pin-686681. wp(c).no. 8636 of 2014 (d) 7. t.t.varkey @ varkey thomas, thakidiyil house, chelad p.o., kothamangalam now residing at382492 near gandhi nagar fire station, salim rajan road gandhi nagar, ernakulam, pin-682017. by senior government pleader.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY,THE8H DAY OF JULY201417TH ASHADHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8636 of 2014 (D) --------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ BIJU @ KURIAKOSE @ BYGU G.THOMAS, AGED42YEARS, S/O.THOMMAN @ VARKEY THOMAS, THAKIDIYIL HOUSE, CHELAD P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKUKLAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY JOHN.X.PAUL, S/O.V.O.XAVIER, VALLAPPELLY, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., EDYAKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA SRI.JOSEPH KURIAN VALLAMATTAM RESPONDENTS : ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683011 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683110 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -683110 5. XAVIER THOMAS, THAKIDIYIL HOUSE, URULANTHANNY P.O., KUTTANPUZHA CHELAD, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686681.

6. T.T. JOSEPH,THAKIDIYIL HOUSE, CHELAD.P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-PIN-686681. WP(C).No. 8636 of 2014 (D) 7. T.T.VARKEY @ VARKEY THOMAS, THAKIDIYIL HOUSE, CHELAD P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM NOW RESIDING AT382492 NEAR GANDHI NAGAR FIRE STATION, SALIM RAJAN ROAD GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682017. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MUHAMMED SHAFI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0807-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BP WP(C).No. 8636 of 2014 (D) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1: COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED1012.2013 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND ATTESTED BY THE ASSISTANT CONSULAR OFFICE, EMBASSY OF INDIA, RIYADH. P2: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2350/2013 DATED65.2013 OF SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM. P3: COPY OF THE WILL NO.140/III/2013 DATED65.2013. P4: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED249.2013 ISSUED BY THE KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY. P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED101.2014 WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE4H RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED127.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS5TO7BEFORE THE3D RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A10-7272-13 DATED3010.2013 ISSUED TO THE4H RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE A.M. Shaffique, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 8636 of 2014 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th day of July, 2014.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges note in Ext. P7 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Ext. P7 is a communication dated 30.10.2013 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to one Sri. Xavier Thomas. It is inter alia stated in the said communication that if the said Xavier Thomas has a contention that his father V. Thommen Varkey was unable to execute a will or settlement deed, he has to approach the concerned registering authority and take appropriate steps in that regard. That apart, it is stated that as per village records, this property is not mutated. While issuing the said communication, in the copy given to the Village Officer, it is indicated that till further orders, mutation shall not be effected in respect of the property. Petitioner challenges the said order.

2. If the petitioner has a contention that he has valid documents available with him, especially settlement deed, he can approach the Village Officer and seek necessary mutation. According to the petitioner, he had approached the Village Officer but on account the note in Ext. P7, no steps is being taken by the Village officer as required in terms of Ext. P5.

3. Referring to the note in Ext. P7, apparently, the W.P(C) No. 8636 of 2014 -:

2. :- Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to issue a note to the Village Officer as he is not seized of the matter. The application was originally to be considered by the Village Officer who is the competent authority and he has to take an independent decision in the matter.

4. Under such circumstances, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, Ext. P5, without reference to the note of the Revenue Divisional Officer in Ext. P7, which shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. A.M. Shaffique, Judge. Tds/


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