Skip to content


K.M. Balan Vs. Village Officer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantK.M. Balan
RespondentVillage Officer
Excerpt:
.....appendix petitioner's exhibits: ----------------------------------- p1: true copy of registered jenm sale deed no.2825/2010 bearing r.s.no.145/2, lying in chuzhali village of kannur district dated186.2010. p2: true copy of registered jenm sale deed no.72/2013 dated51.2013. p2(a): true copy of receipt bearing no.888146 dated157.2010 received by the1t respondent. p3: true copy of request dated132.2013 submitted by the petitioner before1t respondent. p4: true copy of complaint submitted by the petitioner before2d respondent dated152.2013. p5: true copy of the relevant page of the record, wherein phone message is recorded, is obtained under rti dated244.2013. p6: true copy of answer issued by the public nformation officer bearing no.h2/20615/2012 dated276.2013. p7:.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE THURSDAY, THE30H DAY OF OCTOBER20148TH KARTHIKA, 1936 WP(C).No. 28415 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.M. BALAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, "PAVIZHAM", ADUTHILA, EZHOM AMSOM, ERIPURAM CHENGAL DESOM, PAZHAYANGADI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 303. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHUZHALI, CHUZHALI.P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670 631.

2. TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA, TALIPARAMBA.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 141.

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR, PIN - 670 001. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON3010-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/ WP(C).No. 28415 of 2014 (B) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- P1: TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED JENM SALE DEED NO.2825/2010 BEARING R.S.NO.145/2, LYING IN CHUZHALI VILLAGE OF KANNUR DISTRICT DATED186.2010. P2: TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED JENM SALE DEED NO.72/2013 DATED51.2013. P2(A): TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT BEARING NO.888146 DATED157.2010 RECEIVED BY THE1T RESPONDENT. P3: TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED132.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE1T RESPONDENT. P4: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE2D RESPONDENT DATED152.2013. P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE RECORD, WHEREIN PHONE MESSAGE IS RECORDED, IS OBTAINED UNDER RTI DATED244.2013. P6: TRUE COPY OF ANSWER ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC NFORMATION OFFICER BEARING NO.H2/20615/2012 DATED276.2013. P7: TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED JENM SALE DEED NO.126/13 DATED41.2013. P8: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REGISTER WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS ODUKUVIVARAM FROM1T RESPODENT. P9: TRUE COPY OF LETTER UNDER RTI DATED269.2014 ISSUED BY2D RESPONDENT. P10: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED211.2013 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING NO.R.S.NO.145/2 OF CHUZHALI VILLAGE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: - NIL -------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE mbr/ A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

========================= W.P(C).No.28415 of 2014 B ============================ Dated this the 30th day of October, 2014 JUDGMENT

Petitioner purchased 10 cents of land in Resurvey No.145/2 in Chuzhali Village, Kannur district from one Chandroth Govindan as per sale deed No.2825/2010. It seems description of the property in the document is shown as purayidam.

2. There is no impediment in law in showing the description of the property as purayidam in a registered document. However, merely because a property has been described as purayidam in the document, the revenue officials are not bound to act upon such description made in the document. The revenue officials are bound to effect mutation only in accordance with the nature and character of the property as classified in the BTR. As seen from Ext.P8, this property has been classified as nilam. Therefore, even though description is shown in the document as purayidam, revenue officials are not bound to effect classification as purayidam. Therefore, revenue officials are directed to effect mutation based on sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. If the petitioner has a case that this property cannot be classified as nilam, petitioner shall approach the Local Level Monitoring W.P(C).No.28415 of 2014 2 Committee to correct the details of the property as nilam. Petitioner cannot correct the details by asking revenue officials to change the details in accordance with the description in the title deed. The remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee under Act 28 of 2008 to change the classification as reclaimed land if otherwise, it is reclaimed before the Act 28 of 2008. Therefore, with that liberty the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent to effect mutation based on Ext.P2 sale deed in accordance with the description in the BTR within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE. Sbna/30/10/14


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