Important points
In the process of exercise of the limited discretionary functions under the Kerala Land Tax Act and the Transfer of Registry Rules, the competent revenue officials cannot convert themselves from the zone of their allotted statutory functions to the role of determining the title of parties which if permitted would amount to permitting such revenue officials concerned to transgress into the exclusive province and jurisdiction of the civil courts- This would be a serious erosion of the role of law based governance system and would result in loss of confidence in the public about the constitutional based government mechanism- If this is permitted, then it will transgress the sacrosanct constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P-5 order dated 10.10.2018 issued by the 1st respondent-Tahsildar, whereby in request for grant of mutation of the property, in respect of the property covered by Exts.P-1 & P-4 have been rejected.

2. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P5 order.

(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order of direction, directing the respondents to effect mutation in respect of 1.21 ares of land in re-survey No.322/6/1/2 of Peringara Village covered by Exhibit P1 in favour of the petitioner and his wife.

(iii) to issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

and

(iv) award costs of the proceedings to the petitioner.”

3. Heard Sri. George Cherian, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri. K.S. Santhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr. Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

4. For and on behalf of one Sri. Chacko Varghese, his power of attorney constituted as per Ext.P-2 power of attorney dated 11.09.2006 had executed Ext.P-1 registered sale deed No.140/2017 of SRO, Thiruvalla, whereby the said properties of the principal was conveyed to the petitioner. The said principal of Ext.P-2 power of attorney, i.e. the previous owner of the property had secured mutation of the property in his favour earlier and has also paid basic land tax for the said property as evident from receipt dated 03.04.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent-Village Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted an application for grant of mutation and transfer of registry in his name, in respect of the property covered by Ext.P-1 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent entertained a doubt in the matter and had referred the matter to the 1st respondent-Tahsildar, who insisted that the petitioner should produce the copy of power of attorney (Ext.P-2) before him, which is referred to in Ext.P-1 deed. After examination of Ext.P-2 power of attorney dated 11.09.2006 and Ext.P-1 deed, the 1st respondent has taken the stand that as the property conveyed by Ext.P-1 was obtained by the prior title holder, only after execution of Ext.P-2 power of attorney, it was incompetent for the said title holder to convey his rights to the petitioner, on the basis of Ext.P-2 power of attorney. Thereupon, the previous title holder, Sri. Chacko Varghese who is permanently settle down in the United States of America had come all the way down to India and had executed Ext.P-4 rectification deed No.2417/2018 before the SRO, Tiruvalla, again paying stamp duty, as if it is a conveyance. In other words, though Ext.P-4 deed is styled only as rectification deed, the prior title holder has again conveyed and transferred the property rights in favour of the petitioner, by paying full stamp duty by treating the transaction as a conveyance. In other words, the 1st respondent has sat in judgment on the vital issue of title, even though he is thoroughly incompetent in law to adjudge on such vested issue. More surprising part is that though the Sub Registrar has registered Ext.P-1 deed, the 1st respondent-Tahsildar would take the stand that he still has the discretion and the jurisdiction to decide whether conveyance of property, as per Ext.P-1 has been done with proper authority and title. It is much later that the prior title holder Sri.Chacko Varghese, who is permanently settled in United States of America had taken the trouble of coming all the way to India and has executed Ext.P-4 deed as deed No.2417/2018 before SRO, Tiruvalla. More surprisingly, the 1st respondent-Tahsildar has now issued impugned Ext.P-4 order stating that the power of attorney as per Ext.P-2 could not have executed Ext.P-1 deed as the subject property was obtained by the principal, after the execution of Ext.P-2 deed, et