IMPORTANT POINTS
Rule 17 empowers the Tahsildar to take up and dispose of any transfer of registry case which under the Rules, 1966 could be disposed of by a Deputy Tahsildar or by a Revenue Inspector and thereafter whatever be the orders in a transfer of registry case, shall be communicated promptly to the Village Officer and to the parties concerned, and shall be given effect to in the Village Accounts and thereafter a patta in the prescribed form under the signature of the Tahsildar, in accordance with the decision, shall be issued to those who apply for it.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

The appellant, who was the writ petitioner, challenges the judgment of the learned single judge dated 23.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 3647 of 2020, whereby the first respondent, the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk, was directed to take a decision in the application submitted by the appellant to effect mutation of an extent of 0.45 Ares of property in Survey No. 2549/1 of Ernakulam Village in the light of Ext.P1 sale deed dated 22.05.2017, after advertence to the objection of the appellant with regard to the report submitted by the Village Officer, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts required for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:

According to the appellant, he became the owner in possession and enjoyment of a property having an extent of 1.82 Ares situated in Survey No. 2549/1 of Ernakulam Village by virtue of the sale deed No.1838/2017 of the Office of the Sub Registrar, Ernakulam. On registration of Ext.P1 sale deed, appellant submitted Ext.P3 application dated 28.10.2017 for effecting mutation, and issuance of the possession certificate, along with the required documents, before the second respondent i.e., the Village Officer, Ernakulam Village. The case projected by the appellant is that even though the second respondent deputed an officer to inspect the property on the same day, the Village Officer refused to accept the application stating that the appellant has not produced a purchase certificate as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Thereupon, the appellant forwarded the application along with the required documents and covering letter dated 18.11.2017 by registered post to the second respondent Village Officer and he has received the same. Fact remains, the Village Officer, as per his letter dated 08.12.2017, refused to entertain the application for want of certificate enclosing Jenmam rights and on the contrary, directed the appellant to approach the Land Tribunal and obtain the same. While so, the appellant has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4284 of 2019, and as per Ext.P4 judgment, the writ petition was allowed holding that the refusal on the part of the Village Officer to mutate the property and failure to accept the basic land tax from the appellant is illegal and ultra vires. Accordingly, it was ordered that the second respondent will immediately take up the request made by the appellant in Ext.P3 application dated 28.10.2017 and consider the request for granting mutation, transfer of registry, and acceptance of the basic land tax in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. It was further directed to issue a possession certificate within two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the judgment, if the application was in order otherwise. It was also made clear and ordered that the second respondent Village Officer cannot refuse those requests on the ground that the appellant has not produced the purchase certificate of the subject property. Anyhow, the village officer after considering the application, granted mutation only to an extent of 1.37 ares of property, in spite of the appellant filing an objection to an intervening communication so issued by the Village Officer.

3. Even though the appellant has preferred CO(C) No. 1659 of 2019 for violation of the directions contained in Exhibit P4 judgment by the Village Officer, the contempt case was closed as per Ext.P8 judgment dated 08.11.2019 holding that the issues involved are not capable of consideration in a contempt of court case proceedings. However, the liberty of the appellant to take appropriate action was left open. It was accordingly that the writ petition leading to this appeal was preferred by the appellant, basically submitting that the Village Officer has no authority to refuse mutation for a part of the prop