Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K.Narendran, Muralee Krishna S.
Prasantha. K – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala Represented By The Secretary, Department of Revenue – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. counterarguments regarding property ownership (Para 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's directive for enquiry (Para 7) |
| 3. legal issues surrounding property assignment (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar, Devikulam; a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to take a decision on Ext.P16 representation dated 09.06.2022 submitted by the petitioner; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to effect mutation of 29 cents of property situated in resurvey No.105/15 of Marayoor village to the name of the petitioner under Rule 28 of Transfer of Registry Rules , 1966.
2.1 According to the petitioner, her father obtained 19.500 cents each in survey No.107/1B by virtue of Sale deed Nos.2073/1987 and 2074/1987 of SRO Devikulam. Her father had given the 6th respondent, who is one of the sisters of the petitioner, 5 Ares 97 square meters of property situated in survey No.105/15, as per Ext.P9 sale deed No.2649 of 2004 of SRO Devikulam. The 5th respondent, who is another sister of
Unregistered documents cannot effectuate transfer of immovable property valued above Rs.100; proper documentation and verification of ownership are essential for land assignment.
The court emphasized that land assignments must adhere to statutory procedures, and unauthorized occupation does not confer legal rights.
A writ of mandamus requires a legal right and statutory duty, and cannot be issued contrary to law.
Land in tribal settlement areas cannot be assigned under the Land Assignment Act, and agreements lacking proper title are invalid.
The court ruled that procedural fairness requires an opportunity for the Petitioner to contest against unjust limitations on land assignment rights.
The court upheld the necessity for compliance with legal procedures in land registry transfers, emphasizing that administrative bodies must act on valid ownership claims supported by documentation.
The court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish a legal right over the property, and eviction must follow due process under the Land Conservancy Act.
The provisions of Section 28 of the Kerala Transfer of Registry Rules are not applicable to the extent of land which has been construed to be “surplus” under the KLR Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
