IMPORTANT POINT
Unregistered documents cannot effectuate transfer of immovable property valued above Rs.100; proper documentation and verification of ownership are essential for land assignment.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

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 3^rd respondent Tahsildar, Devikulam; a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent to take a decision on Ext.P16 representation dated 09.06.2022 submitted by the petitioner; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd 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. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner has been in possession of 29 cents of revenue puramboke in resurvey No.105/15, Block No.48 of Marayoor Village. Her father Kumaran had settled on the property in 1945. The petitioner obtained the property by virtue of Ext.P1 settlement deed dated 28.02.2005, executed by her father. The petitioner constructed a house on the property in the year 1985. Though the petitioner filed an application before the 3^rd respondent on 25.07.2011 for the assignment of land in resurvey No.105/4C, no action was taken by the 3^rd respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.22590 of 2013 seeking a direction for the assignment of the land. By Ext.P6 judgment dated 18.10.2013, this Court directed the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in the application filed by the petitioner. The 3^rd respondent then conducted an enquiry and obtained Ext.P7 report dated 28.01.2014 from the Village Officer concerned. However, the 3^rd respondent passed Ext.P8 order dated 24.03.2014 without considering Ext.P7 report of the Village Officer.

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 6^th 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 5^th respondent, who is another sister of the petitioner was also given 5 Ares 83 square meter of property in resurvey No.105/15 by the father of the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P10 gift deed bearing No.153 of 2002 of SRO Devikulam. But in fact, these two properties are not situated in resurvey No.105/15. This fact is stated in Ext.P11 report dated 18.04.2015 submitted by the 4^th respondent before the Sub Collector, Devikulam in an enquiry conducted on the basis of an application filed by the 5^th respondent for the purpose of remitting the tax. The tax for the properties in resurvey No.105/15 was not accepted from respondents 5 and 6 by the 4^th respondent since they were not in possession of the respective properties. The petitioner filed Ext.P16 representation before the authorities for correcting the mutation effected in the revenue records in the name of respondents 5 and 6 after measuring the property possessed and owned by the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. In that representation, it was requested to fix the boundaries of the property in the possession of the petitioner in resurvey No. 105/15 on the basis of the title deeds of the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. Since no action was taken in that representation, the petitioner approached this Court.

3. The 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit dated 14.10.2024 opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of that counter-affidavit read thus:

“3. The petitioner claims that she is in possession of 11.80 Ares of wet land in Resurvey No. 105/15 in Block 48 in Marayoor Village which was originally owned by her father Kumaran and demands assignment of the above land in her name. An extent of 7.40 Ares of dry land