Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21941
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Kauser Edappagath, J
SHALU V.A – Appellant
Versus
THE TAHSILDAR – Respondent
WP(C) 27017/2024
MATHEW JOHN (K), ABY J AUGUSTINE, SMT. DEEPA V. - GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The court established that a valid title and possession of property cannot be undermined by unrelated allegations against a prior owner.
Headnote:
Property - Mutation - Act Section List - The court addressed the issue of property mutation, emphasizing the validity of the petitioner's title and possession, and ruled that the objection based on alleged trespass by a prior owner was unfounded, directing the mutation to proceed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, owner of 20.80 Ares of property, sought mutation after purchasing it. The 2nd respondent delayed the process citing a report of trespass by the prior owner into adjacent puramboke land, prompting the petitioner to challenge this delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had clear title and possession of the property, and the objection regarding trespass into puramboke land was irrelevant to the mutation of the petitioner's property.
Issues: Whether the 2nd respondent's decision to keep the mutation application in abeyance due to allegations against the prior owner was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the validity of the petitioner's title and possession was not affected by allegations against the prior owner regarding adjacent land, thus the mutation should proceed.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to complete the mutation process within one month.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 20.80 Ares of property covered by Ext.P1. After the petitioner purchased the property as per Ext.P1, he submitted an application online seeking transfer of registry (mutation) of the property covered by Ext.P1 in his favour. But the 2nd respondent sent Ext.P3 letter to the petitioner keeping in abeyance the proceedings for mutation on the ground that a report has been submitted to the Taluk Office alleging that the prior owner of the property has trespassed into the river puramboke and hence mutation can be completed only after orders are obtained in respect of the said report. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 and also seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to effect mutation.
2. I have heard Sri. Mathew John, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Deepa V., the learned Government Pleader.
3. Ext.P1 is the title deed in respect of the property in favour of the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the land tax receipt issued in favour of the prior owner. Exts.P1 and P2 prima facie show the petitioner’s title and possession over the property. A reading of Ext.P3 would show that the 2nd respondent kept in abeyance the application for mutation filed by the petitioner on the ground that the prior owner trespassed into the puramboke property adjacent to the property covered by Ext.P1. There is no dispute so far as the property covered by Ext.P1 is concerned. There is also no case that any puramboke land has been included in the petitioner’s property. Hence, the objection raised in Ext.P3 cannot be sustained. The respondents are directed to mutate the property as requested by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, this order will not stand in the way of the respondents in initiating action, if any, against the puramboke land.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
